I want us to be able to burn up on entry, if only for the amusing forum thread (BRABEN! I JUST MELT MY CONDA NO INSURANCE> WAIIII?)
Frontier: If you can make a planetary landing system even similar to Outerra, I'll sell you my soul.
- Thread starter Harland White
- Start date
I want us to be able to burn up on entry, if only for the amusing forum thread (BRABEN! I JUST MELT MY CONDA NO INSURANCE> WAIIII?)
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
Well.. but we DO fly in super cruise and we DO have to leave it before we will be able to descend a planet's atmosphere. This is inevitable. And exiting super cruise IS related to this well known animation!
Even if it would be possible to hold all necessary surface data in the RAM (loaded/generated when entering a system) - how do you suggest leaving super cruise should look like in this case? The effect has to be displayed; whether it hides a loading procedure or not is irrelevant!
I imagine the big blue wobbly supercruise exit transition will do its wobbly thing and then TA-DA suddenly GROUND!!!
Not the super cruise animation but hyper jump animation, although sc animation would suck old socks as well. Why should we settle for less or make excuses for technical limitations of this engine?
Pioneer is seamless, two previous games were seamless why this modern game should be worse or why should we accept that?
I'd rather be dropped from sc and travel from a body exclusion zone to a surface for 5-10 minutes than accept such nonsense.
Stupid? Not at all. Just typical. Hype is part and parcel of the video game industry these days. Practically every single game developer, publisher, and studio overpromises and underdelivers. Head back over the DDF archive and see what was discussed there, then compare it to what we've actually got. The gaming press never take publishers to task due to hyping, with the exception of a handful of indie journalists like Jim Sterling.
We've been talking about SCBs today. Please watch this video, and look at the original vision for shields...
[video=youtube;aL2_oa_5D8A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL2_oa_5D8A[/video]
...then compare it to the cookie cutter shield system, complete with SCB spam and boosters, we actually use two years later.
Planetary landings is vastly more ambitious in scope than even this very modest, yet undelivered, proposal.
NOTE: I am not accusing FDev or anyone of abjectly lying to us. I sincerely believe that they believe they can make these things a reality, but as things go forward and as they bump up against limitations in the engine, in technology, in processing power, or even in basic development ability and time constraints things get simplified and discarded.
The problem they have now is that it has to compete with NO MAN'S SKY. If it looks significantly worse they're in trouble.
I'm also not convinced that they'll pull off seamless landings, more for network reasons than graphics reasons. Just flying around in space isn't particularly seamless!
I'm also not convinced that they'll pull off seamless landings, more for network reasons than graphics reasons. Just flying around in space isn't particularly seamless!
The ONLY way to surrender the release of No Man´s Sky is to keep the character of Elite. That is the main point and the most significant comparing both games. No Man´s Sky can do all of what is in Elite but more and bigger.
BUT Elite is Elite and keeping it´s character is essential. Planetary landing and walking around is not a good way to compete with NMS. Elite doesn´t really need that stuff IMO. Landings is good (moons, small stations on planets etc.) but FRONTIER has to concentrate on what Elite is all about - and CQC is NOT a part of that either.
Stay to the roots and Elite is strong enough to survive - and do your homework and pull the bugs FRONTIER.
All the best,
Robin
BUT Elite is Elite and keeping it´s character is essential. Planetary landing and walking around is not a good way to compete with NMS. Elite doesn´t really need that stuff IMO. Landings is good (moons, small stations on planets etc.) but FRONTIER has to concentrate on what Elite is all about - and CQC is NOT a part of that either.
Stay to the roots and Elite is strong enough to survive - and do your homework and pull the bugs FRONTIER.
All the best,
Robin
That's an awesome soundtrack!
Unkle - "Burn My Shadow" (with Ian Astbury from The Cult on vocals).
Thank you for bringing back good memories.
As for PL - I'll bet my time and money on No Man's Sky. Somehow I've lost my trust in FD after a recent events (PP 1.3, regular server issues, returning old bugs, borked core game mechanics, no love for exploration, some "design decisions", etc.)
Sorry for negativity but that's true, I know she's a b****.
However I sincerely hope you guys will be truly pleased by Planetary Landings.
I agree. IMHO, the current status quo was self wrought by the community / players. Cause if it was indeed the original vision, death would be much more frequent versus pilot skill. The current Shields metagame has probably been persevered by the devs so that the majority can have a better time. :/
One word. Compromises. (but opening it up to a bigger crowd does no harm as well
)
As long as they take their time with it and not rush it out half baked I'm sure it will be fine.
The recent comments regarding Pluto were encouraging at least.
The recent comments regarding Pluto were encouraging at least.
I do believe the current shield meta is 100% intentional. From SCB stacking to ultra-slow passive regeneration and reinitialization times, there has not been the slightest hint that FD are not content with the way shields work. I don't think they simply couldn't come up with something better, but that they considered various options and wanted it to revolved around lugging around consumables.
Last edited:
Possibly. That's a different discussion for another thread.
My general point though is that we shouldn't rely on things said in the past to indicate the direction of the game in the future. For one reason or another things change, and change pretty drastically. Even things already present in the game get discarded without much explanation (low heat and overcharged energy weapons anyone?) It's also entirely possible that the glacial progress of the Elite: Dangerous space part of the game, as well as some of the lackluster features (powerplay), is a result of them moving the bulk of the team over to planetary landings. I sincerely hope not, because Elite has a long way to go before it can be called finished and it needs all the hands it can muster.
hahahaha wut!?!?
Kind of a troll I would say old chap.
Now PL will be in stages, airless moons then planets. I just want to see some footage of where they are and what we can expect.
We know what can be done looking at other games, however we do not have a clue regarding ED.
I know they've suggested this is how they'll do it, but how would that work in terms of selling the expansion? Will people want to pay £30 (or whatever) for something that only does airless moons on the promise that they'll finish the rest later? You can't really do expansions where you pay £10 for airless moons, £10 for gas giants, £10 for water worlds or whatever -- it would split the player base in all sorts of weird ways.
Well Frontier thanks for killing my thread by moving it to some obscure part of the forums. I wasn't trying to divert attention to Outerra...I was trying to show what ED has the potential to become.