Atmospheres would give you much more complex landscapes. Also I wonder if it might only be worth doing the maths for atmospheric haze etc when multiple stars are properly lighting and shadowing a planet.
Gamerevolution.com - 5 Important Things I Learned about Elite: Dangerous at E3 2017 Including Atmospheric Planet Landings
- Thread starter vipeFIN
- Start date
Atmospheres would give you much more complex landscapes. Also I wonder if it might only be worth doing the maths for atmospheric haze etc when multiple stars are properly lighting and shadowing a planet.
I only noted that planets containing life, because David Braben much touted his idea of 'big game hunting' even from far back as the original Kickstarter. I agree, more orbital stuff to see would be nice, and much easier than implementing a full atmo entry system in the first instance.
After reading this thread, I have to say I've never seen a collection of such selfish, inane and uninformed opinion. Paraphrasing:
"They shouldn't develop <feature A> they should be focusing on <feature B>."
"They shouldn't develop <feature B> they should be focusing on <feature A>."
"Doesn't matter what they do. Won't change my opinion of Frontier."
"Just another distraction to get us to buy stuff in the store."
"Told you they were not working on <feature>"
Endless speculation, back seat driving (from those without a license) and ignorant guesses stated as facts. What a bunch of self-indulgent drivel. This buffoonery is why Frontier says little until they are ready to release something.
"They shouldn't develop <feature A> they should be focusing on <feature B>."
"They shouldn't develop <feature B> they should be focusing on <feature A>."
"Doesn't matter what they do. Won't change my opinion of Frontier."
"Just another distraction to get us to buy stuff in the store."
"Told you they were not working on <feature>"
Endless speculation, back seat driving (from those without a license) and ignorant guesses stated as facts. What a bunch of self-indulgent drivel. This buffoonery is why Frontier says little until they are ready to release something.
So you believe the author of the article was embellishing details or misunderstood, and attributing words to Sandro that he did not actually say?
Yeah right, whatever, but what does Scott Manley think of this thread?
Uhh not sure what you mean, but "Fly Safe?".
A 10-year plan is not a Gantt chart of detailed activity over 10 years, with a final 31st December 2024 delivery date for feature X. There will be detailed plans for the short term stuff, more general aims for the longer term (1-3 year) stuff and a vision of desired functionality over the 10 years.
To paraphrase: "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder)
The point of having a plan is to know where you are going. The fact that where you are going changes regularly as your situation changes is normal, and in fact, it would be really odd to not review your plans regularly.
There is very likely to be a 10-year plan.
However, FDev know that if they released their whole plan, then sections of this community would forever be throwing it in their faces every time they re-evaluated it and wanted to change it. I'm convinced that there is a long-term plan. I'm equally convinced that it is not in FDev's interests to share it all with us.
Dear FDev
Re: Atmospheric landings:
Yes it's an incredible amount of work, to do well - and I appreciate that, but TBH one of the reasons why I backed E: D was because I had faith that atmos landings of some form would come at some point - especially after the (2nd?) Kickstarter video in which DBOBE demonstrated the prototype cloud technology.
At this point I'd happily take a graphical update of FFE's atmospheric planets (think SpaceEngine, with no major cities, some buildings scattered around bases etc.) over any other gameplay element you can think of (Thargoids included). I'm also prepared to say, here, in front of witnesses that, lifetime expansion or not, I'd (grudgingly) plonk down as much money as I paid for DDF access, for a decent planetary module (though I appreciate I'm probably in a niche market there, and you'd need a few more people than just little old me.
) (Looks at shelf full of flight sims worth several thousand pounds...)
Also, please, don't shy away from doing something with atmospheric worlds just because a certain other, procedurally generated planet explore-em-up got a critical drubbing after many years of excessive hype, and another space game potentially offering such delights seems to be caught in development Hell.
*Edit* And having watched the interview above, FDev, regarding it 'being advisable to team up with other players' please don't forget that Solo was sold as a viable mode, as was Open, for the single player. I hope you can come up with an 'organic' system, driven by the BGS for the Thargoid incursions, that allows the careful, single player to avoid the threat (e.g. avoiding 'hot' sectors), rather than just 'X% of random Thargoid encounter for everyone' or 'Go to this USS for strong Thargoids, go to this USS for weak ones'. The former would be annoying, the latter a tad immersion breaking. (Yeah Forum! I used the 'I' word! Sue me! )
Regards,
Re: Atmospheric landings:
Yes it's an incredible amount of work, to do well - and I appreciate that, but TBH one of the reasons why I backed E: D was because I had faith that atmos landings of some form would come at some point - especially after the (2nd?) Kickstarter video in which DBOBE demonstrated the prototype cloud technology.
At this point I'd happily take a graphical update of FFE's atmospheric planets (think SpaceEngine, with no major cities, some buildings scattered around bases etc.) over any other gameplay element you can think of (Thargoids included). I'm also prepared to say, here, in front of witnesses that, lifetime expansion or not, I'd (grudgingly) plonk down as much money as I paid for DDF access, for a decent planetary module (though I appreciate I'm probably in a niche market there, and you'd need a few more people than just little old me.
) (Looks at shelf full of flight sims worth several thousand pounds...)Also, please, don't shy away from doing something with atmospheric worlds just because a certain other, procedurally generated planet explore-em-up got a critical drubbing after many years of excessive hype, and another space game potentially offering such delights seems to be caught in development Hell.
*Edit* And having watched the interview above, FDev, regarding it 'being advisable to team up with other players' please don't forget that Solo was sold as a viable mode, as was Open, for the single player. I hope you can come up with an 'organic' system, driven by the BGS for the Thargoid incursions, that allows the careful, single player to avoid the threat (e.g. avoiding 'hot' sectors), rather than just 'X% of random Thargoid encounter for everyone' or 'Go to this USS for strong Thargoids, go to this USS for weak ones'. The former would be annoying, the latter a tad immersion breaking. (Yeah Forum! I used the 'I' word! Sue me!
) Regards,
Last edited:
Maybe some features that were originally intended for S3 have been put on the back burner and instead, more core gameplay features are yet to be worked upon?
Dear FDev
Re: Atmospheric landings:
Yes it's an incredible amount of work, to do well - and I appreciate that, but TBH one of the reasons why I backed E: D was because I had faith that atmos landings of some form would come at some point - especially after the (2nd?) Kickstarter video in which DBOBE demonstrated the prototype cloud technology.
At this point I'd happily take a graphical update of FFE's atmospheric planets (think SpaceEngine, with no major cities, some buildings scattered around bases etc.) over any other gameplay element you can think of (Thargoids included). I'm also prepared to say, here, in front of witnesses that, lifetime expansion or not, I'd (grudgingly) plonk down as much money as I paid for DDF access, for a decent planetary module (though I appreciate I'm probably in a niche market there, and you'd need a few more people than just little old me.
Also, please, don't shy away from doing something with atmospheric worlds just because a certain other, procedurally generated planet explore-em-up got a critical drubbing after many years of excessive hype, and another space game potentially offering such delights seems to be caught in development Hell.
Regards,
I agree with you 99.99%. I would only leave out "grudgingly", otherwise this post describes my sentiments 100%. *Waves at fellow DDF member*
good god
last 2 months i see only "dissapointment" threads and some "speculation" threads
when FDEV release some news the reactions is like "FUUUUUUU"
or "i thought it would be ATMOSPHERIC PLANETS..."
"...WITH LIFE AND..."
"...SPACE LEGS LIKE IN...."
"freаkin' NoManSсums but better"
2.5 years passed since ED launch.
Now tell me that we've got less than you hope in this timelenght.
last 2 months i see only "dissapointment" threads and some "speculation" threads
when FDEV release some news the reactions is like "FUUUUUUU"
or "i thought it would be ATMOSPHERIC PLANETS..."
"...WITH LIFE AND..."
"...SPACE LEGS LIKE IN...."
"freаkin' NoManSсums but better"
2.5 years passed since ED launch.
Now tell me that we've got less than you hope in this timelenght.
I don't want to rehash old ground - but (yes, I'm going to) Frontier can be somewhat ambiguous in statements (hence probably why they don't do many, as we all jump on them, which makes everyone upset[1].
). At the Kickstarter, it was strongly suggested that elements of Elite IV had been 'skunkworked' and 'prototyped' in the decade before 2012, yet we now know pretty much all development came after the funding was secure (as you would expect). Ditto we were told that multiplayer was working 'in the office', but fell over quite rapidly once in the wild of the net. Likewise ships were supposedly 'blocked out' internally early in development, and mooted to be coming with customisable fittings and damage models - yet again, where are we now? And of course <cough> Singleplayer gate </cough>
My point? Plans change - especially in the light of economic realities, and the road to Hell (or St. Neot's) is paved with good intentions. What was said a long time ago, with DBOBE and the boys in a pub in 2014, jotting down Season 3 and 4 ideas over a ploughman's lunch, may have as much relevance today, right now, as the Liberal Democrats (
) As to the Holy '10-year plan...' pffffft! [1] I'm aware that the content of the post beyond this footnote may be viewed as somewhat hypocritical. YMMV.
Waves back.
Last edited:
Against my better judgment I'm going to jump in on this thread and open myself up to the firing squad
I'll try to address a few things from early on in the thread that I can answer with absolute certainty and leave the more ambiguous elements to when I can get some more clarifications and input from David and Sandro as they are the two people that will know with said certainty.
This is always a fear as we saw with the initial implementation of Planetary Landings and the ensuing feedback of there being little to do. This is something that we'd like to avoid and ensure meaningful additions are made to the game. Speculation of whether something is going to be implemented, and in what fashion is going to lead to frustration at lack of confirmed information and also heightened expectations before we've really discussed it in full with you. I understand the hunger to get more information and clamouring for it - I really, really do - but it's something to speak about in more detail hopefully with Sandro here on the forums or on future livestreams.
I can't speak with too much authority since I'm no scientist or professional developer, but considering the complexity of that challenge it's going to be a monumental task to add the various types of atmos. So many variables to consider and get right. You guys want it, we want it, and there ain't a one of us that want it to be f....udged up! Speculation will lead us in circles, I think.
There are traditional artists, 3D artists, animators, UI designers, UI developers, AI programmers, simulation programmers, writers, game designers, graphics programmers, audio designers, audio programmers data analysts, server engineers, QA, Dav (because he's scarily clever, he is a wizard in his own right) ... within these roles and teams there will be people with specialisations who tackle very specific areas of development. There's so many people just on the development side of things. On the wider business there's also a lot of people working in other sectors. You don't just have 100+ programmers all plugging away at one little part
And I would say that maintaining your current attitude until things are actually confirmed is a good way to go about things. It's easy to get wrapped up in the hype and go on a tangent after only a little bit is said on a particular topic. I disagree with your sentiment on the fact that if no-one else is delivering, we don't need to. I feel like there's more motivation and incentive to deliver as much as we possibly can. It's the mentality of "if no-one else is going to do it, then we will have to."
I'll try to address a few things from early on in the thread that I can answer with absolute certainty and leave the more ambiguous elements to when I can get some more clarifications and input from David and Sandro as they are the two people that will know with said certainty.
This is always a fear as we saw with the initial implementation of Planetary Landings and the ensuing feedback of there being little to do. This is something that we'd like to avoid and ensure meaningful additions are made to the game. Speculation of whether something is going to be implemented, and in what fashion is going to lead to frustration at lack of confirmed information and also heightened expectations before we've really discussed it in full with you. I understand the hunger to get more information and clamouring for it - I really, really do - but it's something to speak about in more detail hopefully with Sandro here on the forums or on future livestreams.
I can't speak with too much authority since I'm no scientist or professional developer, but considering the complexity of that challenge it's going to be a monumental task to add the various types of atmos. So many variables to consider and get right. You guys want it, we want it, and there ain't a one of us that want it to be f....udged up! Speculation will lead us in circles, I think.
There are traditional artists, 3D artists, animators, UI designers, UI developers, AI programmers, simulation programmers, writers, game designers, graphics programmers, audio designers, audio programmers data analysts, server engineers, QA, Dav (because he's scarily clever, he is a wizard in his own right) ... within these roles and teams there will be people with specialisations who tackle very specific areas of development. There's so many people just on the development side of things. On the wider business there's also a lot of people working in other sectors. You don't just have 100+ programmers all plugging away at one little part
And I would say that maintaining your current attitude until things are actually confirmed is a good way to go about things. It's easy to get wrapped up in the hype and go on a tangent after only a little bit is said on a particular topic. I disagree with your sentiment on the fact that if no-one else is delivering, we don't need to. I feel like there's more motivation and incentive to deliver as much as we possibly can. It's the mentality of "if no-one else is going to do it, then we will have to."
I was hoping an official might jump in on this. Thanks for extending a hand. [up]
Last edited:
Out of rep apparently but thanks Dale, really appreciate it when you guys chip in!
Against my better judgment I'm going to jump in on this thread and open myself up to the firing squad
I'll try to address a few things from early on in the thread that I can answer with absolute certainty and leave the more ambiguous elements to when I can get some more clarifications and input from David and Sandro as they are the two people that will know with said certainty.
This is always a fear as we saw with the initial implementation of Planetary Landings and the ensuing feedback of there being little to do. This is something that we'd like to avoid and ensure meaningful additions are made to the game. Speculation of whether something is going to be implemented, and in what fashion is going to lead to frustration at lack of confirmed information and also heightened expectations before we've really discussed it in full with you. I understand the hunger to get more information and clamouring for it - I really, really do - but it's something to speak about in more detail hopefully with Sandro here on the forums or on future livestreams.
I can't speak with too much authority since I'm no scientist or professional developer, but considering the complexity of that challenge it's going to be a monumental task to add the various types of atmos. So many variables to consider and get right. You guys want it, we want it, and there ain't a one of us that want it to be f....udged up! Speculation will lead us in circles, I think.
There are traditional artists, 3D artists, animators, UI designers, UI developers, AI programmers, simulation programmers, writers, game designers, graphics programmers, audio designers, audio programmers data analysts, server engineers, QA, Dav (because he's scarily clever, he is a wizard in his own right) ... within these roles and teams there will be people with specialisations who tackle very specific areas of development. There's so many people just on the development side of things. On the wider business there's also a lot of people working in other sectors. You don't just have 100+ programmers all plugging away at one little part
And I would say that maintaining your current attitude until things are actually confirmed is a good way to go about things. It's easy to get wrapped up in the hype and go on a tangent after only a little bit is said on a particular topic. I disagree with your sentiment on the fact that if no-one else is delivering, we don't need to. I feel like there's more motivation and incentive to deliver as much as we possibly can. It's the mentality of "if no-one else is going to do it, then we will have to."
I really, really like this way of communications about speculations
I am in in this forum since August 2015 and a hole bunch of speculation were made in here and I am done with it, I am ready for facts and ongoing developement news Many thanks for your statement!
Last edited:
Speculations are nice and all, but I can see this going on a tangent that'll just get out of hand - and perhaps off-topic too.
The thing I'd like to do is speak with Sandro and David when they return from E3 and get further clarification straight from them to you guys on what was said at E3. It's worth remembering that there's a difference between what press writes in an all-encompassing article intended for everyone outside of 'the community' and what you guys (the more knowledgeable and detail-oriented folks) are after. Information will be given, just a little patience is required. I'll hound the E3 attendees when they return with the things you've been discussing in this (and similar) threads.
The thing I'd like to do is speak with Sandro and David when they return from E3 and get further clarification straight from them to you guys on what was said at E3. It's worth remembering that there's a difference between what press writes in an all-encompassing article intended for everyone outside of 'the community' and what you guys (the more knowledgeable and detail-oriented folks) are after. Information will be given, just a little patience is required. I'll hound the E3 attendees when they return with the things you've been discussing in this (and similar) threads.
Yes, I'm curious what they'll say and what Frontier's long term intentions still are for this game, understanding that some developments might not be able to be guarantied. Being a LEP holder, fan, and active player in the game, I naturally want to see the full potential of the game realized as best as viably possible. I personally am not as concerned about how long it might take to achieve these sort of results and more of what was talked about during the earlier days of development and the Kickstarter, just that development is continuing to head toward those goals.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Conversely, if you leave things too long, and wait till they are 'perfect' before a reveal, will there be anyone still around to see (or fund) the fruits of your labours? Previously, DB said that things would probably be incremental regarding atmos. landings, so you only need to get some variables right at a time, and things would appear, as and when.
Thanks for 'breaking ranks' and risking the firing squad though.
And I'll state again. I would pay a lot of money to fly over an Earth-like, with proc. gen bases or cities - even if there isn't much 'gameplay' other than the graphics, FSX stylee. And I'm prepared to wait a few years for it to come, but it would be nice to know even something more limited than that is still in the pipeline. I don't have to be out of my ship hunting dinosaurs to enjoy flight in a flight game.
Last edited: