Graphics Need Updating

[InMemoriamSirocco]

Graphics in this game will need to be updated at some point, I agree. And despite the manner in which the OP presented his argument, he has a point.

There is much room for improvement. In many cases the graphics of Elite Dangerous cannot compete with those of Space Engine, which began development in 2005 and is a one-man-profit-optional project.

Space Engine also has more variation in planet types and types of alien life that can be found on them, as well as more different types of atmospheres with their own distinguishable look.

It has dynamic lighting, all stars in a system serve as light sources and cast dynamic shadows on the planets orbiting them. The light wavelength and colour is also taken into consideration by the engine, so all planets in a Blue Star system are illuminated in a blue glow, no matter how far away from their parent star they are.

Planetary rings and moons cast shadows on the body they are orbiting, and all planets with atmospheres have an aurora at their polar regions.

Just google some Space Engine screenshots and you will see how poor Elite Dangerous looks in comparison. Not always, but very often:

Space Engine on Youtube

I am currently out exploring the nebulae near Barnard's Loop, and while I find them a stunning sight to behold in the game, they sometimes look like washed out low res textures from a distance:

California Nebula in game:

View attachment 25631

Actual California Nebula:

Messier Nebula in Game:

View attachment 25633View attachment 25634View attachment 25635

Actual Messier Nebula:

I think you get my point... there is really some room for improvement in Elite Dangerous' graphics. I wouldn't say it's a priority, but it needs to come at some point, eventually.

The engine is still lacking dynamic lighting and shadows on a system wide, interplanetary scale, there are no auroras visible yet, planet textures are lacking in comparison to other games, the Milky Way looks nice but nothing like the original, which Space Engine does a far better job to emulate, and there are also still a lot of LOD issues:

Planets pop up out of nowhere once you get to a set distance - before they are just tiny dots, there is no fluid approach at all. Planetary rings disappear during supercruise entry and dropout for a couple of seconds... Rings don't cast shadows, neither do moons when between the star and their parent planet...

The graphics are "nice" but not "spectacular". Space Engine's graphics are spectacular. Star Citizen's graphics are spectacular. I think those are the titles that Elite Dangerous has to compete with. Let's hope it will get on par with them at some point in the future.

 

[Insomnia]

Wow those actual nebulas are so amazingly beautiful! I agree with all you said when seeing these images. Wow!

 

[vermu]

I have to check that space engine. Really nice images but you just can't beat the originals in the sky. They are just amazing. Milky way was quite nice looking in space engine, much smoother than ED.

 

[Seonid]

But the graphics is pretty much all Space Engine does, let alone all those "actual" pictures are false coloured multiple composites and they don't actually look like that to the MK 1 Eyeball.

 

[Sgt Doom]

Are those nebula pics taken purely in visible light, though? I distinctly recall that to see all the features of a nebula requires viewing in IR or xray, and sometimes using certain filters. For example, this picture of the Carina nebula was taken in IR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carina_Nebula.jpg
I think one of the few areas the devs want to stick to absolute realism is the structure and appearance of the galaxy. Would be rather fun if we could, for example, apply an IR or x-ray filter to the canopy; we already know there's some magic going on to prevent spontaneous retina combustion when we look at a star close-up, while still being able to see other, far less luminous things at the same time.
Definitely agreed on improvements to LOD and dynamic lighting, though, particularly in the case of systems with multiple stars. We'll presumably see much better planetary surface detail when planetary landing gets implemented; there's already been a few improvement passes made on planets since beta 1.

 

[TriumphANT]

The SpaceEngine graphics are absolutely amazing. Thanks for the screenshots. I haven't looked at it since 2012/13 or so. Wasn't it quite laggy at times though? My GTX560Ti slowed down to 3-5FPS when shifting from interstellar space to solar systems IIRC. Maybe lower. I'd imagine that superimposing that onto ED would make it too slow for most PCs, especially with a nice busy CZ superimposed on that detail level, but I'm not sure.

Personally I think the graphics in ED are wonderful, and the OPs shots of Alpha/Beta show how much attention to detail has been put into keeping the graphics and UI consistent (mostly!) and gorgeous. I was playing with the DSR settings yesterday in Ultra mode, and it's quite a jump up in quality. SuperSampling just slows my old system down too much.

 

[Kernel Kwatz!]

Okay. I guess any opinion that conflicts with yours is automatically wrong, yeah? Like I said, the graphics are poor in comparison to the games being released today.

Right back at ya, pobri19! You don't seem to have engaged with any of the counter arguments and instead you persist with the victim mentality evident in your opening post.

For example, it has been pointed out many times that screenshots you provided are from the early stages of development, i.e. pre-release build. Many graphically superior counter examples have been provided from the current build. Yet you have nothing to say in response other than to repeat your initial claim. Please note that repetition of an assertion does not equate to a strong argument. It's not even clear if you have played the game. Have you? If you have played the game then it's not clear what graphic settings you are using. Maybe you could throw us some of your screenshots rather than rely on outdated images?

For what it is worth, I don't disagree that ED could look better in places. Perfection is forever around the next corner. But there are surely more important things that need to be addressed.

 

[Nara]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Kernel Kwatz. Pobri19 has only provided images from pre-release and has made no attempt to even acknowledge the flood of superior images in this thread. This is evidently a troll and hopefully we'll all stop replying to it.

No wait, forget that, keep posting the awesome images guys

 

[Maxavius]

I would love to see an update to the way the engine handles AA .I especially notice j aggies in station when docked no matter which AA setting I use .

 

[Arithon]

If you think any game had graphics as good as Elite back in 2005, you're much mistaken. I had BF2 at the time of release and it was the visually best FPS for a long time.

BF2 on todays PC's doesn't even come close to ED - if it did have graphics anywhere near as good as Elite back in 2005 it would (a) have been headline news and (b) wouldn't have run on any hardware available at the time.

Your comparison is at best, flawed. On the face of it nonsense. Tree sprites and blurred texture hills are better because... not space?

No even going to grace the whole "here is a screen shot from pre-release Alpha as a current example" with a response.

Try comparing like with like, such as X3 Reunion from 2005, which you would see, whilst amazing at the time, looks dated now compared to Elite. The fact you compared Elite to an FPS speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge. You've simply trawled the search engines for "evidence" to support your opinion, in some attempt to make the facts fit your viewpoint.

Elite

• has Higher resolutions
• has Better textures
• has More detailed models
• Is not an FPS

Even Elite's detractors start most complaints with "Elite looks amazing, but..." - frankly I think the OP is just trolling.

 

[seansamurai1]

Disgusting graphics, utterly disgusting.
Look at them, just look, they are horrifi.....
oh wait, actually, no, they're pretty damned nice.
Even more so when all of what you see is generated in a loading screen, it's not fixed or a 'painted' backdrop like startrek online.

 

[Insomnia]

I would love to see an update to the way the engine handles AA .I especially notice j aggies in station when docked no matter which AA setting I use .

Actually I think FD's fix on the jaggies was the introduction of resolution scales.
If I'm not mistaken ED uses deffered rendering which hinders the use of conventional AA like MSAA.

 

[klh]

Let's put this to rest: The graphics of ED are great... provided you have a decent GPU. I wonder if the console ports will look as great.

 

[shadragon]

Huh? Graphics in-game are phenomenal in HD resolutions. Am working on getting a 4K screen and vid card and know I won't be disappointed.

Frontier's devs are doing a stellar job (pun intended) with both sound and video. Judging from the OP's source material he either does not play, or plays for another company.

 

[Synther]

I would love to see an update to the way the engine handles AA .I especially notice j aggies in station when docked no matter which AA setting I use .

If you're using an Nvidia card, Nvidia Inspector can force FXAA and wipe out most of the jaggies.
http://imgur.com/eUXqmSV

The three things you need to notice are antialaising compatability, FXAA usage and FXAA on/off.

 

[Synthetic Frost]

Let's put this to rest: The graphics of ED are great... provided you have a decent GPU. I wonder if the console ports will look as great.

I highly doubt it. The current gen consoles have pretty weak hardware compared to the previous generation. When the previous gen Xbox 360 and PS3 came out originally, they were pretty competitive with high end gaming rigs. The Current gen Xbox One and PS4 were much more modest. They're more closely matched to mainstream laptops, using AMD 7000 series GPUs and older AMD Jaguar CPUs.

There's actually been a big revolt from gamers and developers alike here in the U.S. over it. Developers are angry because they can't get the console ports of their games to run anywhere near as well as the PC ports. Consoles are struggling to run modern games at 900p and 30fps. Let alone 1080p or 1440p and 60fps.

 

[Werppa]

The only thing I don't currently like graphics-wise is the noticeable texture pop-in when you get closer to planets when you're scanning them. They are just bright dots but when you get closer to them, the texture just "magically" changes itself. It was especially annoying when I tried to take a really cool screenshot from two planets orbiting each other but it kinda failed because the further one looked so crappy...

 

[Synthetic Frost]

I'm pretty sure you can extend the draw distance in the game's settings xml file.

 

[Lord_Crazy]

Graphics is the one thing the game doesn't have to worry about. It's future-proofed quite nicely with its ability for 4k and 8k already built in (and more if I remember right).

Content FDEV, get on it.

I don't see how 4k and 8k is a solid futur proofing when the geometry partly belongs to the past. Go land to an outpost and check the rotating satellite antennas: they look more like polygons than circles. Also check the canisters. Finally simply check the little vents thingy (like in cars) on a viper and see for yourself: those things are angular instead of being round.
So yeah I partly agree with the OP. I think graphics overall are nice as they convey a very credible space experience. The planets, nebulae and light effects look amazing. But then take a closer look at the geometry. You will realize some shapes are not satisfactory, and some textures are very flat. It still feels 2015 level, but if geometry and textures are not upgraded in this year, the game wont feel fancy long enough, and whether you use 8k or not won't change it.

 

[AndyC77]

Don't fall for this nonsense. Its just an attention seeking waste of space thread.