You don't get the POIs after FSS, but you do get both Geo and Bio in system map after DSS at the bottom of the planet stats.
Geo/bio POI scanning changes in the next update
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
A separate button would work as well. The problem isn't so much about getting the POI information, but that it's slowing down the computer for people with slower computers.OP Marx's suggestion would be to include a button to perform the complete scan after the approximation. Waiting on the full 20-40 seconds for it to finish would be better than spending several minutes to fly there and DSS the planet, only to find that it's empty, the approximation was wrong and you wasted your time.
Agree..agree...AGREE... the way to go mate!
And what's really annoying is that if you ignore the POI scan and un-zoom the planet, it still runs in the background, hogging CPU and causing jerky and twitchy motions.
If it's a separate button to do the detail scan, that's fine. And if there was a way to do a in-system temporary bookmarks for the planets you want to scan further.
FD's proposed change would certainly speed up FSS scanning, but it would leave you with less information than we get currently, so you'd have to fly to all of those "maybe" planets and probe for bio signals. Overall it would take more time to hunt bio while exploring, and you'd end up probing a lot of planets with absolutely nothing on them, so more time wasted.
That's my big beef with their proposal. I don't want exploring in Elite to have any more time sinks, adding the FSS slowed exploring down a lot but at least it gives us factual actionable information. Losing that would just be a huge nerf to the FSS, and in my opinion the last thing the FSS needs is LESS functionality.
Well, you still get the type of volcanic activity, so by looking at the type you can narrow it down. (Hint: it rhymes with silly-con
). So far those are the only ones I've seen having bio's, but then again, I've only discovered some 20 plants so far. I was hoping the water geysers or "water magma" would have had it too, but so far I haven't seen those being bio.The truth is, I look at the volcanic type while it's "scanning" and know if there's a chance of bio before the scan is done.
Sure. What I'd like to have seen is that it could've said it's geo or bio on there. I just don't need the FSS figure out the latitude and longitudes, hair color, shoe size, and favorite food of every single anomaly. What is the purpose of the DSS unless it was to actually get location and map data?
Yes, you are right. I forgot about that. When I started to play ED I had the same computer ( i7-4770K) but the graphics card was a NVidia GTX-680. The whole GUI was like molasses. I then changed to a 1070 and everything went smooth, like having a new computer. I wonder how much faster it gets when I change to a 1080ti.
First, the geo topic, and then some off-topic responses. I'm not sure that putting the planet calculation on the CPU would be viable: Frontier might have gone with the GPU because they need it to be much more parallel. It would be very interesting to know how exactly it works, but I don't think we'll ever know. However, I wonder why the generation is tied to the frame rate though... Console "optimizations", maybe? I hardly know much on such a matter.
Anyway, what Iskariot said about more agency in game mechanics is spot on. FD's proposed change is also going against what they wanted the Chapter Four stated goals to be - and to be frank, this is still Chapter Four's legacy. The POI scan shouldn't have been implemented this way, and it shouldn't have made it out of beta this way. But hey, it did, so here we are today, with something that needs to be fixed. (Alongside plenty other things, just with the FSS.)
Let's not forget though that the skeleton crew assigned to the live game might not have the authority and/or skill to make changes to planet generation. Orvidius mentioned sites being likely moved if that is altered, but that has already happened once, so I don't think Frontier would shy away from doing it again if that were required. Personally, I don't remember much of an outcry about this back then. However, even if one happened, there are less people exploring now than there were at that time, so a new outcry would be smaller.
I do wonder though if decoupling the geo/bio generation from the terrain generation process wouldn't produce "worse" sites. Not their content, but their placing.
It'll be interesting to see what Frontier will end up doing after all this feedback now. Will they spend a bit more effort to produce a better fix, or will they ignore it again and put out what they originally said unchanged? We should soon see.
Going to the responses then:
Let's see then...
This is going to be a bit personal, but I have to say, I'm curious. How do you personally rate yourself as, would say you explore below the average, around the average, or above it? Responses to such questions can be quite enlightening. (For example, according to a 2017 study by the AAA, 73% of drivers in the US consider themselves to be better-than-average drivers. Although that question was about skill, not about how much they drive.)
In any case though, depending on your screen resolution and refresh rate, that GTX 1070 is probably plenty enough for Elite. 1070 to 1080 Ti is certainly smaller a jump (in performance) than 680 to 1070 was.
Anyway, what Iskariot said about more agency in game mechanics is spot on. FD's proposed change is also going against what they wanted the Chapter Four stated goals to be - and to be frank, this is still Chapter Four's legacy. The POI scan shouldn't have been implemented this way, and it shouldn't have made it out of beta this way. But hey, it did, so here we are today, with something that needs to be fixed. (Alongside plenty other things, just with the FSS.)
Let's not forget though that the skeleton crew assigned to the live game might not have the authority and/or skill to make changes to planet generation. Orvidius mentioned sites being likely moved if that is altered, but that has already happened once, so I don't think Frontier would shy away from doing it again if that were required. Personally, I don't remember much of an outcry about this back then. However, even if one happened, there are less people exploring now than there were at that time, so a new outcry would be smaller.
I do wonder though if decoupling the geo/bio generation from the terrain generation process wouldn't produce "worse" sites. Not their content, but their placing.
It'll be interesting to see what Frontier will end up doing after all this feedback now. Will they spend a bit more effort to produce a better fix, or will they ignore it again and put out what they originally said unchanged? We should soon see.
Going to the responses then:
You're right, I seem to have forgotten there that I did. Thanks for saying this, I'll remember it the next time you don't answer a question I asked you.
Let's see then...
I asked two figures: how many systems and how many bodies. I'm sure you're aware that the game provides exact statistics for you, but let's see then... The DW2 roster says you're flying a Krait Mk II with only 50 ly jump range, and you've yet to get back to the bubble... Assuming you're exploring somewhat and not just heading straight back, the "thousands" you refer to is probably two thousand systems, maybe three. Over a year - well, eleven months. As for bodies, you did say elsewhere that you don't scan everything, so I guess that the answer would be about the same there.
This is going to be a bit personal, but I have to say, I'm curious. How do you personally rate yourself as, would say you explore below the average, around the average, or above it? Responses to such questions can be quite enlightening. (For example, according to a 2017 study by the AAA, 73% of drivers in the US consider themselves to be better-than-average drivers. Although that question was about skill, not about how much they drive.)
Judging from personal experience, and actual hardware capabilities: I don't think you'll notice a change in GUI rendering speeds. I was about to say that your GTX 680 wouldn't have met the minimum requirements for Horizons, but now that I checked them again, turns out it technically would.
In any case though, depending on your screen resolution and refresh rate, that GTX 1070 is probably plenty enough for Elite. 1070 to 1080 Ti is certainly smaller a jump (in performance) than 680 to 1070 was.
Last edited:
What's sad is that I have a gaming computer with a 1080TI card... but it's packed away because of construction in the house that's been going on since the beginning of the year. Sometime next year I might be able to have my office room restored and the computer up again. Until then, I have to do with the laptop.
My monitor is now an Agon AG352UCG6 running at 120 Hz in fullscreen. Everything is smooth and fast. Before that I had a 3 monitor setup with a refresh rate of 60Hz. So, not so smooth but still fast enough.
I always try to answer.
If I start scanning with the FSS, I scan everything. I just don't DSS everything as I don't see the point.
I have nothing to compare it to really. I don't play every day, I have a family and need to spend time with them. I really have no idea what the average is either.
Yea i am really confused. Why does it need changing?
I go into a system FSS everything because i scan every body. I dont wait for image to pop up etc, it takes no time to do now.
Then check system map before i jump, if a cool coloured looking moon or potato moon has got geo sites that it tells me in the description i may go and check it out. Atleast i know if i travel 2m in supercruise it will have geo sites.
Why would anyone want a maybe it has? Im not going to travel 200'000ls to a moon, probe it and to find out it hasnt got geo sites.
95% of moons i land on in the black is because it has Geo Sites. No offence FD but the ones without are mainly boring.
What is "This can take tens of seconds" ???
Edit: I just realised this is an PC effected thing, on Console it is the same regardless of geo site or not, well not happy obviously, console players being punished for no reason.
I go into a system FSS everything because i scan every body. I dont wait for image to pop up etc, it takes no time to do now.
Then check system map before i jump, if a cool coloured looking moon or potato moon has got geo sites that it tells me in the description i may go and check it out. Atleast i know if i travel 2m in supercruise it will have geo sites.
Why would anyone want a maybe it has? Im not going to travel 200'000ls to a moon, probe it and to find out it hasnt got geo sites.
95% of moons i land on in the black is because it has Geo Sites. No offence FD but the ones without are mainly boring.
What is "This can take tens of seconds" ???
Edit: I just realised this is an PC effected thing, on Console it is the same regardless of geo site or not, well not happy obviously, console players being punished for no reason.
Last edited:
For some of us it does. Well, it used to be really bad, but it's a bit better now. Tweaks and I suspect one or the other update improved it a little. I was complaining much more during summer because it took so long that I really had to go and do other things while waiting. Now, it's more of 5-10 seconds for POI planets. But of course, most of the planets are immediate, the ones without Geo/Bio. If the planet has a lot of locations, it takes longer.
But then again, I'm not playing the game a lot now. Just a couple of times a week for an hour or two each. Jumping to 2-3 systems, spend the time scanning everything, landing on planets with bio's and scan those, then log out. So in the end, I don't care much more either way anymore. There are other games that works better on my computer, so it's getting to the point of whatever. I did go to the Golconda and transported one or two loads of stuff though. I will do the beta testing and keep on playing now and then, but I really don't care as much to what happens to the game as much as I used to.
I would prefer it to change as I would like to decide if I am going to travel to a planet without having to use the system map. I generally choose while I am FSSing. The FSS should provide you the same information that's in the system map. But there isn't any real consistancy at the moment. Hopefully that will change.
Exactly.
And vice versa!
Uh, the FSS doesn't give you any latitude nor longitudes for anything, you need to probe with the DSS to get that info?
The FSS only tells you what kind and how many of POI's are on the surface, it doesn't locate any positions at all.
Sounds wonderful
I know.Uh, the FSS doesn't give you any latitude nor longitudes for anything, you need to probe with the DSS to get that info?
I was just exaggerating because I think it's silly that it can count the number of locations from distance. If it can count them, then why not let it do all of it, even locations, number of geysers and more. Put it this way, if you can count the legs of the people in a crowd, it's not hard to also say how many people there are. True, but it can count them... how do you count something? By actually finding each and every single one and +1 on each... So if you do that, why not have the locations as well? Don't you need the locations to count them? Don't you have to somehow "see" them with the scanner to actually count each and every single one of them?
I rather have it say, "Geological sites found" without a number, and the number given when you go there and do a DSS. I don't care if there are 1, 2, 80, 5 billion of them on a planet. I'm only interested in are there any or not, and if I want to go there and find each and every single one of them, then I can do that.
The probability thing, not a big fan of that either. Just is there or isn't there a geo and/or bio planet. Numbers and details is secondary.
I wonder how the FSS can manage to count the POIs on the back of the planets... hmm... magic!
Deleted member 38366
D
I've asked in the Announcement Thread but so far no answers (or simply no Data) :
I'd really like to know what metrics to expect from the Probability indicators.
If Unlikely means pretty much 0% based on our statistics then seeing that could be safely (somewhat) interpreted as "None".
But if it spans from 0% to 20%, that'd mean upto 1 out of 5 could have something. For some already enough to warrant investigation - or get the distinct feeling of "missing out" and violating "Explorer OCD" so to speak.
And what about Likely vs. Very Likely?
What's the percentages all three are based on?
I'd say it'd be extremely beneficial to know those metrics behind the three words assigned to them in order to make any qualified Exploration decisions, should this new system go live.
I'd really like to know what metrics to expect from the Probability indicators.
If Unlikely means pretty much 0% based on our statistics then seeing that could be safely (somewhat) interpreted as "None".
But if it spans from 0% to 20%, that'd mean upto 1 out of 5 could have something. For some already enough to warrant investigation - or get the distinct feeling of "missing out" and violating "Explorer OCD" so to speak.
And what about Likely vs. Very Likely?
What's the percentages all three are based on?
I'd say it'd be extremely beneficial to know those metrics behind the three words assigned to them in order to make any qualified Exploration decisions, should this new system go live.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting discussion.
I'm not completely sure how I feel about the proposed change. I don't like the FSS and never have. I do like the information it gives me, but its interface is rubbish, and the fact that it doesn't feed all its information out to the other navigation systems on our ships makes it doubly crap. Having just started playing in VR this last month, I've discovered its sheer awfulness gets magnified to a whole new level there. Its just bad on an epic level.
Speeding up geo site resolution is required, because at the moment all the other juicy POI information gets hidden behind that slow resolution on planets with geo sites. And there is currently no where else in game that gives you the other juicy poi information until the planet is mapped.
OR
If they feed all the info out of the FSS to the other nav systems, (Left Hand Menu and System Map), I possibly don't care at all. Because if that happens I'll just skip through the stupid hunt the circle game as fast as possible and then ignore the whole damn thing once I can see the info I want in another system.
I really wish they would rework it and integrate it more seamlessly into our cockpits. Hopefully that will happen with the revamp/new game or whatever it is they are planning.
I'm not completely sure how I feel about the proposed change. I don't like the FSS and never have. I do like the information it gives me, but its interface is rubbish, and the fact that it doesn't feed all its information out to the other navigation systems on our ships makes it doubly crap. Having just started playing in VR this last month, I've discovered its sheer awfulness gets magnified to a whole new level there. Its just bad on an epic level.
Speeding up geo site resolution is required, because at the moment all the other juicy POI information gets hidden behind that slow resolution on planets with geo sites. And there is currently no where else in game that gives you the other juicy poi information until the planet is mapped.
OR
If they feed all the info out of the FSS to the other nav systems, (Left Hand Menu and System Map), I possibly don't care at all. Because if that happens I'll just skip through the stupid hunt the circle game as fast as possible and then ignore the whole damn thing once I can see the info I want in another system.
I really wish they would rework it and integrate it more seamlessly into our cockpits. Hopefully that will happen with the revamp/new game or whatever it is they are planning.
This.
Wether or not they'll implement this new mechanic will be decisive for me wether I keep playing ED or not.
Exploration is the one thing I like most in ED, the long scan times ruined it for me although I like the new fss.
If this new mechanic gets implemented, I call it a new mechanic btw, not a fix, then we're back to flying thousands of ls in order to see if there's actually something to find.
I was waiting for a fix for the long scan times, this is not a fix imho but it makes matters even worse.
Reason for me to stop waiting and playing when they implement this new mechanic.
So right now, it is possible but very rare to get back a result of "Geological (0)" from the FSS - these would presumably be the cases where the body meets all the criteria for geo sites, but the proc gen just happens to produce no actual sites. Going by the frequency of reports and my own (lack of) experience with this, this happens for one out of several thousand bodies. If the "Very Likely" result is just telling us that the FSS would have produced a "Geological (N)" result, including the rare N=0 cases, then I think most people would be fine treating that as a definite answer. And we know this can be quickly computed - the FSS reports "None" almost immediately if sites are not present.
Except, there have also been reports of planets showing geo sites when probed, that got a "None" result in the FSS. Since finding these relies on the luck of someone having probed a planet for reasons other than identifying POIs, it's hard to say how common it is, but it likewise seems pretty rare. I'd be shocked if more than 1% or so of FSS "None" bodies have such hidden geo sites. If the FSS "None" result is the "Unlikely" result in the new system, then that's really no change from what we have now, and seems fine.
Only thing I can't see here, is what would be the intermediate "Likely" state? It seems like the current system can already quickly distinguish between "Virtually certain" and "Highly unlikely", so what does the third intermediate result correspond to?