Geo/bio POI scanning changes in the next update
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
Haha, called it!
The more I think on it, the more I approve of this change. It makes sense. I've totally stopped scanning HMCs because the slowdown when 2+ are resolving simultaneously is annoying, as is waiting for the results (I believe this makes me a lowly 'casual' explorer). This change would allow me to scan HMCs, and get an instant idea of whether I might want a closer look.
I think keep it slow but make it interesting.
So regardless of whether there's geological or biological features, slowly build up a detailed view of the planet, with max/min altitudes, axial tilt, polar caps, mineral percentages etc... presented in an informative, fun-to-look-at, graphical way.
So regardless of whether there's geological or biological features, slowly build up a detailed view of the planet, with max/min altitudes, axial tilt, polar caps, mineral percentages etc... presented in an informative, fun-to-look-at, graphical way.
Don’t know. I’ve been requesting/asking that the POI info from from the FSS be added to the sysmap since very early in the 3.3 Beta (at the point when it wasn’t added to the sysmap whatsoever).
No idea why they’re doing it only after DSSing, when the info is there after FSSing.
It doesn’t really make any sense (on face value at least. Possibly there’s technical reasons, but as all that’s being added is info and that info is produced by the FSS, it’s a struggle to see what technical reason there could be that that now existant info couldn’t be added at that point.)
My feedback on that hasn’t changed since early in the Beta - the results should be added to the Sysmap as they’re produced. The FSS info should be added after FSSing and the DSS info should be added after DSSing, which is to say the locations should all be added to the body’s surface map in the sysmap.
Seconded.
Yeah those numbers concern me.@all
I just got the question answered about what numerical probabilities are represented by Unlikely, Likely and Very Likely :
ANNOUNCEMENT - January Update - Beta Announcement
Frontier Issue Tracker You'll need to sign in with your Frontier account & prove you're not a robot. That's robotism! Robots have feelings and rights too! What do they have against us robots? 🤪forums.frontier.co.uk
The "Unlikely" percentage surprised me alot, I expected something very low.
Thoughts on the matter...
Using Geo sites as it’s simplest, and for the sake of the argument, 66% of bodies as having no Volcanism, then at least 66% of bodies should fall into ‘Unlikely’, but will have a 0% likelihood. With 'unlikely' being defined as less than 60%, this seems like it's going to end up in a very odd situation.
Is anyone able to pull out the % split of landables between volcanic and non-volcanic from EDSM or anywhere? (Had a bit of a look but couldn't see how to get it, but others tend to know how to get that kind of data more readily than I do.)
As someone who always uses the DSS on planets I'm interested in potentially landing on, this doesn't hit me so much, but damn, will it hurt people who like to do their scans with the FSS and then leave...
How nice it would be to have a better surface map. POIs, maybe even have the lines for latitude and longitude marked etc. And bookmark at a given coordinate.
Hey all, just posted a screenshot in the announcement thread showing some of the things that happen / are taken into account in system / planet generation. Just posting it here as well in case it's useful for reference for anyone. From 57:25 in the Creating a Galaxy video.
Quick update from the Beta.
'Signals' has been split into 'Locations' and 'Features'
Landables without volcanism are returning 'None' for both - so the 'unlikely' category does not appear to be including the 'definitely not' planets, which is good news!
Edit - also the info return time for those bodies has gone from 3-5 seconds to instant!
'Signals' has been split into 'Locations' and 'Features'
Landables without volcanism are returning 'None' for both - so the 'unlikely' category does not appear to be including the 'definitely not' planets, which is good news!
Edit - also the info return time for those bodies has gone from 3-5 seconds to instant!
Deleted member 38366
D
So far, that cycling Info Locations -> Features (2-3sec) is slowing things down alot for me, as it's being displayed for every Body. Not a friend of that.
I'm currently in the process of gathering Data from Bodies with Biologicals (Probability vs. Number of sites).
I'm currently in the process of gathering Data from Bodies with Biologicals (Probability vs. Number of sites).
I like the new Locations/Features split personally, but then it's quicker for me than things were previously. Will bear in mind that it's effecting you negatively when giving my feedback on it in the Feedback thread. o7
Deleted member 38366
D
I've written a suggestion on the topic, although that'd mean unifying the Display and removing the split of Information (just to avoid the cycling delay) and so that it can show everything at once.
(if you prefer the split and that's important to you, then please do leave that in your feedback)
Deleted member 38366
D
I've got a limited set of Samples only, but so far it looks quite good when it comes to Probability vs. amount of actual Sites. No duds so far for me.
