News From orbit down to Europa

[FuZion]

What else is new in this forum?

Agreed. I've believed it for quite some time, but I really do think people are crazy. Rome wasn't built in a day. Or even a year. Frontier are building a bloody Galaxy simulator!

Part of the issues is, I don't think everyone realises how hard it is to make this happen. Frontier certainly have the talent, those that want the perfect game should probably just look away for a few years because this one is constantly being built on & improved.

For me, I'm absolutely buzzing about Horizons & cannot wait to see it grow & grow over the coming years.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

It should be designed for cutting edge technology but made scaleable and if that isn't possible then up the spec requirements instead of making something for console.

The problem for me is that income is put before quality and we have seen that as pattern from day one when the game was released much too early to catch the holiday market - it is till incomplete now from what we were promised.

Everyone's an expert & has the answer. I bet the entire Frontier staff have just slapped their foreheads with a "D'oh!"

 

[CMDR_UberDude]

I think the idea is, if you want to go somewhere else on the surface that's not all that close, you ascend to the Glide altitude, fly along at (say) 2500m/s speed, then descend once you're where you want to be.

That neatly avoids clunky and complex transitions from Supercruise to Normal Space, which would otherwise be required for covering any real distance.


This would have been a critical feature in order to manage short-term persistence for surface installation states (eg. stuff you'd blown up or affected - power stations, gun emplacements...).

The SC transition is a full instance change every time. By jumping from planetary flight to SC, you risk losing all the states of the things on the surface... depending on whether there is any other player still down there. It's a case of "last one out, please turn off the lights" for any instance.


By adding a midway-speed "Glide Mode", FD get planetary flight to work with the instancing system instead of against it. While you're flying around the planet, things on the surface remain in a consistent state, just the way you left them. Because you haven't left them... and Glide Mode is there to get you from A to B fast, without cutting over instance transitions.


Conjecture, of course. But that's kind of how I expect it to work.

Guess I'll find out in a day or two!

Considering we'll have planets we can land on that have a circumference 2X that of earth and possibly bigger. 2500 m/s or 2.5 km/s isn't fast enough. The I.S.S. is travelling at around 7.66 km/s and still takes 92 minutes to complete an orbit. Considering that the "glide" zone is from 25 km to 7.5 km this puts you considerably closer to the surface those shortening the distance but you're also only going 2500 m/s.

Point is. I don't think climbing back up into super cruise to get to something on the other side of the larger planets is avoidable. Not unless you want to spend 30+ minutes getting there.

 

[Jack Schitt]

[...]
but I really do think it's not the loading that's the problem, it's the p2p checking bit.
[...]

This. It's not "loading" in the traditional gaming sense, where assets are loaded from storage to memory (in fact as processors, SSDs and RAM get faster and cheaper that's becoming an ever more blurred distinction anyway). It's all the handshaking and synchronisation. If you have a Tail-like tool looking at the networking log during the drop from supercruise you can see all the extra traffic coincident with the pause. It's also why, absent any other networking issues, the pauses tend to be shorter (or at least more consistent in duration) if you're playing in Solo. There's no P2P to slow things down.

So while it's arguably not seamless (if you consider the drop to be a seam) it's not a loading screen either.

Extrapolating from what I've seen it looks as though I'll be able to take off from a base on Europa, fly up, enter orbital cruise, fly around the planet until I can see Ganymede^[1], fly away from Europa until I enter supercruise, cruise to Ganymede, enter orbital cruise, fly around until I spot a base, descend to the base and land. If I can do all that, and the only pauses are brief wobbles as I enter and leave orbital cruise^[2], I'll be more than happy. Other opinions are available.

^[SUP][1]assuming Ganymede is in the beta, which I'm hoping it is.
^[2]we can only guess at what happens when you enter orbital cruise from "glide mode" but I wouldn't expect it to be any more jarring than the supercruise entry from free space.[/SUP]​

 

[PiLhEaD]

So, when requesting landing, did anyone else raise an eyebrow at the golliath and guardian entries?

Well, on behalf of all the people of this community and speaking for all of you, the United Party of Entitled Whiners (U-PEW) have raised an 'Immediate Demand of Inclusive Open Transparency' ticket on support, to access to every and all aspects of their performance!

...and no, we will not wait 24 hours for this... else we will rage-quit en masse... again...

[/irony] (Yes yes I can guess what they are really!)

 

[Mucka]

No income, no game at all. So yeah, I imagine it's pretty high on the priority list.

And yet amazingly games are made all the time without such strategy - don't let reality get int he way of a good argument though.

What makes me laugh most though is that software houses used to get lambasted for releasing unfinished games, now they charge a premium for you to play them and call it a Beta release.

 

[Katie Byrne]

And yet amazingly games are made all the time without such strategy - don't let reality get int he way of a good argument though.

What makes me laugh most though is that software houses used to get lambasted for releasing unfinished games, now they charge a premium for you to play them and call it a Beta release.

Cool story bro

tell me more about it when i'm landing on planets tommorow

 

[Mucka]

Sorry, I couldn't disagree with you more.

Even though I am fortunate to have a upper mid-range (or perhaps lower high range) rig and could (if I didn't insist on having two gaming capable pcs) afford a high end rig, I still cannot agree with you that if FD cannot make a particular aspect completely scalable, that they should then expect a higher minimum spec.

How would alienating or losing 50% of the customer base because they cannot run the game be good for the game in the short or long term just to satisfy the uber rig players' needs to push their equipment to the limit.

To think you can completely ignore income when running any business is naive at best and to increase costs and cut off potential customers by setting the min spec too high just to make one aspect prettier would be foolish. (IMO)








Glide does sound a little gentle doesn't? However there would be no 'burn' when there is no atmosphere.

There are plenty of games out there that are produced for higher end systems.
People who complain about the quality of ported console games do so for a reason.
Games that are first and foremost developed for PC and not to run at 30 fps tend to be higher quality.

To be fair though, it is more sensible to make a game scalable from the bottom up than the top down from a business perspective but the top end visuals of ED, particularly what we have seen from horizons thus far, just do not match the price tag or expectation IMO.

Is that a quality issue or lack of scaling possibilities that have thus far been introduced?

Some aspects are good enough. low orbit looks fine, but surface detail is really lacking in my view.
Still, this is beta, and things will improve.
If they do I will consider a purchase but until then the argument that producing lower quality to fund better quality later doesn't really add up beyond a hardcore fanbase.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Cool story bro

tell me more about it when i'm landing on planets tommorow

Yes I can see you are too busy to absorb facts as reality - enjoy your own personal reality bubble and narrative - that imagination will come in handy while you play.

 

[Flak]

Observation.

Great video, David! The wait is nearly over

<Rest of post deleted as I was being blind >

 

[nexxo]

And yet amazingly games are made all the time without such strategy - don't let reality get int he way of a good argument though.

Sure. Star Citizen is totally not touting for money, for instance, and their game has amazing quality --what bit of it exists, that is.

What makes me laugh most though is that software houses used to get lambasted for releasing unfinished games, now they charge a premium for you to play them and call it a Beta release.

Nobody is forcing you to buy. Just wait until the finished product hits the shelves at your local Game Station. Meanwhile we'll be landing on planets.

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

There are plenty of games out there that are produced for higher end systems.
People who complain about the quality of ported console games do so for a reason.
Games that are first and foremost developed for PC and not to run at 30 fps tend to be higher quality.

To be fair though, it is more sensible to make a game scalable from the bottom up than the top down from a business perspective but the top end visuals of ED, particularly what we have seen from horizons thus far, just do not match the price tag or expectation IMO.

Is that a quality issue or lack of scaling possibilities that have thus far been introduced?

Some aspects are good enough. low orbit looks fine, but surface detail is really lacking in my view.
Still, this is beta, and things will improve.
If they do I will consider a purchase but until then the argument that producing lower quality to fund better quality later doesn't really add up beyond a hardcore fanbase.

TBH .. Your entire attitude comes across as a total PC Elitist.

A game is not just about the graphics you know. Yes there are plenty of examples of games that push technology (at its time) to the absolute limit. However from a business point of view that makes zero sense in this day and age as you will be alienating about 90% of your userbase. Maybe 10 - 15 years ago when gaming way very much still just played by the 'hardcore' you could make that argument, not now though. For a game to be financially successful you have to make it scalable, especially if you are an independent (which Frontier now are).

Star Citizen is a perfect example of a game that when it is complete will need a hell of a machine to run properly. Yes that will push some people in to upgrading, it will also come to a bit of a shock to those who can't afford to.

Games that are first and foremost developed for PC and not to run at 30 fps tend to be higher quality.

I don't even know where to begin with that statement, games are not developed like that in general. I can give you plenty of examples of games developed for PC that are shockingly bad, and games that are developed for consoles which are shockingly good (even by PC standards).

Games are games , they are there to be played not marvelled at because of the graphics, graphics are an important aspect of them of course, but having the 'console's have ruined PC games' attitude that you seem to have is a pretty sad way of looking at it.

 

[Karl Marx]

I just upgraded to a GTX 980 TI and a 50" 4k UHD TV (that can run 4k at 60hz)... I'm interested to see if my computer will catch fire with planetary landings. If it doesn't, it'll be beautiful.

 

[mossfoot]

TBH .. Your entire attitude comes across as a total PC Elitist.

More than a bit. And I agree about a game being more than about graphics. My friends and I have discussed this plenty of times before - we'd gladly have a game with early last decade graphics if the tradeoff somehow meant you'd have zero lag time and smoother gameplay. It would be far better than having a game with bleeding edge graphics but lag problems and crappy gameplay.

Graphics are nice, and a certain minimum standard should be expected, but it's still far less important than the rest of the things required to make a game great.

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

More than a bit. And I agree about a game being more than about graphics. My friends and I have discussed this plenty of times before - we'd gladly have a game with early last decade graphics if the tradeoff somehow meant you'd have zero lag time and smoother gameplay. It would be far better than having a game with bleeding edge graphics but lag problems and crappy gameplay.

Graphics are nice, and a certain minimum standard should be expected, but it's still far less important than the rest of the things required to make a game great.

Exactly.
Take the new Star Wars game for example.
Beautiful to look at and amazing scenery. What do we get in reality?
pew pew pew pew pew pew done-to-death dull boring pew pew cod gameplay.

 

[Alec Turner]

Oh my god oh my god oh my god. Only just found the time to watch these two videos. This is EAXACTLY what I'd hoped for ... absolutely stunning. Massive congratulations to everyone at FD, what you've achieved here is beyond words. Congratulations. I think you've earned youselves the best christmas break ever. Consume turkey and champagne until you burst. Next year is going to be every bit as amazing as this year was. An absolute landmark in computer gaming.

 

[Alec Turner]

Quick question (apologies if this has already been asked). In that first video, after David has got into the buggy and driven out and up onto the ramp beside the landing pad he arrived at ... would it have been possible at that point to "send the ship back into orbit"? and if so, would we then see the ship rise up out of the hanger next to us and take off? ('Cos that would be kinda awesome).

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

Exactly.
Take the new Star Wars game for example.
Beautiful to look at and amazing scenery. What do we get in reality?
pew pew pew pew pew pew done-to-death dull boring pew pew cod gameplay.

However ..... This is Starwars we are talking about ..

I don't disagree the game itself is very basic, but when it comes down to it I can't think of another game that looks and sounds as much like Starwars than this. The point being the game still looks and sounds great and it STILL works well enough on lower end PC's / consoles. It could look a whole lot better if they tailored it to just people with Titans, but then there would be about 100 people buying it if that were the case.

 

[tntfoz]

Exactly.
Take the new Star Wars game for example.
Beautiful to look at and amazing scenery. What do we get in reality?
pew pew pew pew pew pew done-to-death dull boring pew pew cod gameplay.

However ..... This is Starwars we are talking about ..

I don't disagree the game itself is very basic, but when it comes down to it I can't think of another game that looks and sounds as much like Starwars than this. The point being the game still looks and sounds great and it STILL works well enough on lower end PC's / consoles. It could look a whole lot better if they tailored it to just people with Titans, but then there would be about 100 people buying it if that were the case.

Agreed - SW: Battlefront looks astonishing to me, and the COD like gameplay just makes it more accessible in my book. If you don't like shooters, then it's not going to be for you, but if you do like Star Wars then there's no other title out there that puts you in the universe as well as this one does.

Elite's graphics are already sublime in my book and convey the galaxy we're interacting in superbly. However, the thing that really strikes home to me is scale.

Elite: Dangerous conveys the scale of everything perfectly. From the size of the galaxy to the solar systems we need to supercruise across, and onto the massive coriolis stations we dock at - everything is fantastically realised. Now with the Horizons release dropping imminently we're going to experience the scale of planets and moons and that's going to open the mind even further.

To have all this put in front of us with the fidelity that Frontier have implemented is some achievement!

 

[Xzanron]

Indeed, 0.13g is too light to really cause much of a noticeable effect. Past 0.4g it's fairly clear, higher than that gets extremely obvious - especially if you flip upside down! Clearly I'm not speaking from experience there... >.>

With FA on your ship will always try to hold position if its thrusters can cope (at the cost of generating heat/fuel usage, those things aren't designed for long continuous burn), but unless you're balancing on your ventral or rear thrusters ships can't manage that in any meaningful gravity. With FA Off your ship will faaaaaaaalll.

Exactly where the balance is between ships thrusters and gravity is very much something where we need a wider sampling of people to pitch perfectly - tweaks expected .

What type or warnings / information displays will we get to help us with this? E.g. if we try to fly down to a planet with a surface gravity of say 10g which is much higher than thruster/main-engine power will we still be allowed to land, and get stuck? Or will we get some warning that the planet is unsafe to attempt a landing?

Maybe we could enter FSD while stuck on the surface to escape