Horizons Horizons still lacking eye candy

Horizons has been around a while now, and i still feel we are lacking some proper nice eye candy content, for example:

wreck ships are still very few and far between
POI are still not great and hardy no anyone that really bothers with them now
Storage is still missing
Planet structures still look out of place and you still find them in some odd places !!
Ship scanning abilities for locating planet side are still very limited seeing as its 3302 :/

So i still want to ask frontier about a richer environment for the game, with all the new updates coming for this season maybe it's something that will come in time, but feel each time they add something it's a very limited affair, so lets see wrecks a common place after all its space it should be littered with full capital ship derelicts, of all sizes, lets make poi better and not random, and those buildings look weathered and like they belong on the ground not so new and polished?

Just a few personal ideas that i feel is Long over due..
 
Horizons has been around a while now, and i still feel we are lacking some proper nice eye candy content, for example:

wreck ships are still very few and far between
POI are still not great and hardy no anyone that really bothers with them now
Storage is still missing
Planet structures still look out of place and you still find them in some odd places !!
Ship scanning abilities for locating planet side are still very limited seeing as its 3302 :/

So i still want to ask frontier about a richer environment for the game, with all the new updates coming for this season maybe it's something that will come in time, but feel each time they add something it's a very limited affair, so lets see wrecks a common place after all its space it should be littered with full capital ship derelicts, of all sizes, lets make poi better and not random, and those buildings look weathered and like they belong on the ground not so new and polished?

Just a few personal ideas that i feel is Long over due..
......I've seen plenty of "eye candy" I guess it depends on what you are looking for.
Wrecks everywhere wouldn't be very realistic.

POI's could definitely use improvement yes.

Storage is coming.

Structures look great imho, but obviously can't say I have seen them all, maybe some places have generation errors.

On scanning, I don't think you realise how difficult it is to accurately scan something from afar, it is an enormous amount of physical factors that are not likely to change, scanning the 'general' surface of something is easy enough, finding a crashed ship that is maybe 25 meters long, on a planet that is who knows how big? yeah...

But they are adding more, also if you want to make suggestions post it in the suggestion forum so devs don't need to look through general forums to find suggestions, keeping track of forums is hard enough already even for devs, they are human.
 
My photo albums disagree. I'm not sure what you were expecting from a game aiming to be realistic. Buy No Mans Sky its going to have what you are looking for
 
I agree that if exploration was spiced by occasional discovery of something cool, it would be nice. I am confident that these things will come with aliens and atmospheric planets. Just hang in there. :)

For now, this is all the eye-candy I need:

OK3UgQM.jpg



4c2T9b3.jpg



YrtsHRS.jpg



MLzKv7x.jpg


wXuWNuB.png



tlQFKp1.jpg
 
Horizons has been around a while now, and i still feel we are lacking some proper nice eye candy content

Most of the "eye candy" in Horizons actually consists of the planets themselves and there are many impressive screenshots that players have taken from the perspective of the SRV or a ship in close planetary orbit. Unfortunately FD had to scale down the planetary graphics/textures because many players were experiencing severe issues with texture "pop in" when approaching planets with the original launch of Horizons. When Horizons launched I would see large areas of textures popping-in as I approached planetary surfaces where the textures appeared in "fields" that would render only at very short distances. I have a mid-end GPU (670MX with 3 GB DDR5 RAM) and my graphics settings are quite modest (High settings in 1600x900 resolution) which my GPU should be able to handle quite easily. I usually get around 50-60 fps, my GPU temps rarely get above 65 degrees and I'm using DX12 with the latest NVIDIA drivers so it wasn't an issue with my GPU/drivers/etc as Elite tends to be coded quite efficiently in terms of overall graphics but the planetary textures were causing some significant problems. With the newer textures we have in 2.1 the quality is lower but there are now minimal texture pop-in issues. Although the majority of players (including myself) were generally happier with the "nerfed" graphics because the texture problems were destroying immersion, some players with high-end machines preferred the original graphics which on Ultra settings with a top-end graphics card were approaching photo-realistic quality. FD is sort of stuck here where they want to make the game playable for the majority of players on mid-low end machines while still giving players with high-end rigs some impressive scenery. It will be interesting to see how they handle the graphics settings over the next year with the recent release of the 1070/1080 GPUs (which can actually outperform the previous Titan series) and I wouldn't be surprized if they re-introduce the higher-quality planetary textures again for players on Ultra settings when more players have upgraded their rigs with the newer GPUs.
 
Last edited:
There are still TOO FEW texture maps for planets you can land on. You can easily see this if you slowly approach one and pay close attention to the detail, sharpness and overall image quality. There are several points during this approach where a new texture should be swapped in to maintain all these various graphic qualities, but that isn't what happens with Horizons.

Instead, Frontier simply milks the existing texture far past where it should be used, and as you zoom into this texture more and more, things start to blur and details begin to muddy. This is basically the same effect you would get with any digital image if you zoom into it beyond the point where the image's resolution can hold everything together.

Why FD has chose to do this is a mystery. Most of us on PC have GPU's that can easily handle a lot more texture juggling than ED ever throws at our machines, so who knows what their motivation was. But the result is a somewhat lackluster experience when approaching, orbiting and finally landing on a planet.
 
There are still TOO FEW texture maps for planets you can land on. You can easily see this if you slowly approach one and pay close attention to the detail, sharpness and overall image quality. There are several points during this approach where a new texture should be swapped in to maintain all these various graphic qualities, but that isn't what happens with Horizons.

Instead, Frontier simply milks the existing texture far past where it should be used, and as you zoom into this texture more and more, things start to blur and details begin to muddy. This is basically the same effect you would get with any digital image if you zoom into it beyond the point where the image's resolution can hold everything together.

Why FD has chose to do this is a mystery. Most of us on PC have GPU's that can easily handle a lot more texture juggling than ED ever throws at our machines, so who knows what their motivation was. But the result is a somewhat lackluster experience when approaching, orbiting and finally landing on a planet.

Time. They have already had to delay 2.1. Clearly they don't have the to implement super fancy textures yet. They will get to it eventually. 2.1 improved textures on planets a bit. 2.2 will do the same thing. Eventually "texture juggling" will be added. Quit being a whiney impatient baby. Developers aren't out to screw you. They gain nothing from it. If something hasn't been done yet its because there hasn't been the time yet. There are much more important things to do be doing.
 
Last edited:
Why FD has chose to do this is a mystery. Most of us on PC have GPU's that can easily handle a lot more texture juggling than ED ever throws at our machines, so who knows what their motivation was. But the result is a somewhat lackluster experience when approaching, orbiting and finally landing on a planet.

Like I had said, there were some very substantial problems with the first set of planetary textures that they used when Horizons launched and for some reason they were looking terrible on most people's machines due to extremely short rendering distance. This was occurring on mid-range machines that could handle the rest of Elite without problems so it wasn't an issue with GPU/settings/drivers/etc. In my case I have a mid-range GPU and had been using High settings on a mid-range resolution and for some reason my GPU couldn't seem to render the textures until reaching a very short distance to planet. This meant that I was basically approaching featureless blurry spheres until I got really close. Given that the planets we land on lack atmospheres the terrain detail should be very crisp and it was extremely immersion-destroying. FD seems to have gone the other direction with the current set of planetary textures and the top-end quality isn't as good as people were hoping but at least it isn't giving the terrible performance we got from the first set of textures.
 
Why FD has chose to do this is a mystery. Most of us on PC have GPU's that can easily handle a lot more texture juggling than ED ever throws at our machines, so who knows what their motivation was. But the result is a somewhat lackluster experience when approaching, orbiting and finally landing on a planet.

Sry but a lot of people are glad about the fact that they can run this game^^
In fact i had to improve my graphiccard although i have little to no money for it^^ i'm far far away from a gtx 1060 an such things.
In my opinion we get great eyecandy with this medium requirements. I'm satisfied from what i have seen in game :)
 
Last edited:
Sry but a lot of people are glad about the fact that they can run this game^^
In fact i had to improve my graphiccard although i have little to no money for it^^ i'm far far away from a gtx 1060 an such things.
In my opinion we get great eyecandy with this medium requirements. I'm satisfied from what i have seen in game :)

ED is actually a relatively low demand game from a graphics standpoint compared to its contemporaries. When I benched it the first time I was really surprised by just how low that demand actually was in areas you would expect it to be high. The areas of highest load is also somewhat confusing. For example... One of the highest uses of GPU resources currently occur while displaying the Starport menus! My own overclocked 980ti always runs up to full boost clock speed along with the highest heat readings I see during an entire 3-6 hour ED session. All this GPU demand while the player is sitting idle and docked with the Mission Board loaded! - What is that all about?

I don't know what portion of gamers you are referring to, but if they had trouble running ED then high demand games like GTA5 would have to be a slide show on that same machine.

That said, given the high demand I do see on ED's various menus, lower performance cards might have trouble recovering from whatever issue is going on there, and carrying this stress over to actual gameplay in between visits to Starports. Especially if they take their breaks from the game with their ship docked at a Starport. I would do the same thing before I saw the numbers from my GPU! Now I either quit out, or put the ship in normal space before taking a break during a session.

As far as 2.0 to 2.1... I saw the demand on GPU actually go UP while at the same time the texture quality went down.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Quit being a whiney impatient baby.

You had my attention until I got to this. ^

What is your problem? Another one of those who can't handle an opposing opinion without resorting to personal insults to make your point? Doesn't do much for your credibility or maturity for that matter. (considering you used the term "Baby" to describe someone who takes issue with some of FD's development choices)

As for the point I believe you were "attempting" to make...

Its pretty clear to anyone who has stuck with this game for the last 2+ years that when it comes to patience, ED owners who are still playing the game have the patience of a saint! Those who don't left the community a long time ago.

I don't know what other video games you play besides this one, but compared to most of the more well known, the progress going on here with simply "finishing" the core game mechanics borders on GLACIAL! Those who would argue with someone over something this obvious and widely accepted need to get out more! ;)
 
Last edited:
ED is actually a relatively low demand game from a graphics standpoint compared to its contemporaries. When I benched it the first time I was really surprised by just how low that demand actually was in areas you would expect it to be high. The areas of highest load is also somewhat confusing. For example... One of the highest uses of GPU resources currently occur while displaying the Starport menus! My own overclocked 980ti always runs up to full boost clock speed along with the highest heat readings I see during an entire 3-6 hour ED session. All this GPU demand while the player is sitting idle and docked with the Mission Board loaded! - What is that all about?

I usually get fps in the 50-60 range (usually high 50 range) but I also notice slowdowns in areas that you would not expect to have high graphics load, such as when opening the universe map, which drops me into the 15-20 fps range momentarily before returning to the 50-60 range. I have also noticed that my fps is lower while docked at stations by around 5-10 fps which drops the fps into the low-50 fps range while I'm at the starport menu. Interestingly enough this goes back to the usual 50-60 range while in the outfitting screen. I suspect that some of this is caused because you are still rendering the station and other internal details while docked but I'm not sure why simply opening the starport menu would add significantly to the graphics load. I also suspect that some resource-intensive tasks may be sent to the GPU in some cases which effectively slows down the fps for some reason. For example I wouldn't be surprised at all if the route mapping when you plot a jump route is actually processed by the GPU as the architecture for most GPUs tends to be good at these types of tasks (which is coincidentally why bitcoin miners repurpose their GPUs for bitcoin mining). I haven't noticed any fps slowdowns when plotting short routes but it would be interesting to see if the fps drops while plotting routes in dense stellar regions (such as near SagA). In general though the graphics coding in Elite is pretty efficient aside from the issues people were having with the planetary textures.

I don't know what portion of gamers you are referring to, but if they had trouble running ED then high demand games like GTA5 would be a slide show on that same machine.

Elite is generally a mid-demand game in terms of graphics requirements and I have actually had more trouble running Battlefield 4 on my 670MX on high settings (which is a 3 year old game) than I have running Elite. My fps in Battlefield was slowing down to the 30-40 range (I needed to enable V-sync to avoid screen tearing which didn't help) and when I overclocked my 670MX I could get the fps back to the 40-45 range which was more reasonable. With Elite however I can set everything to High and get 50-60 fps without overclocking which is pretty decent for the 670MX which is a 3 year old card.

As far as 2.0 to 2.1... I saw the demand on GPU actually go UP while at the same time the texture quality went down.

Although texture quality has declined somewhat the rendering distance has improved dramatically on mid-low end machines so something about the textures seems to have become less resource-intensive. I doubt that it is simply the texture sizes given that there is really no way that the textures should have been anywhere near big enough to hit the 3 GB memory limit on my 670MX since I've been running a very modest 1600x900 resolution and my GPU memory is DDR5 which means my GPU memory size/speed should not have been a bottleneck. So I'm not sure exactly what happened with the textures or why they were causing so many problems on mid-range machines. Like I said for my rig (and presumably other mid-end machines) the rendering distance improved from the point where I was seeing blurry planets with texture pop-in during 2.0 but now I have very little of these problems in 2.1 even though the texture quality overall is lower.
 
Last edited:
From orbit to landmass, how about better vision, as in 2016 satellite imaging of Earth is very good. As it is 3302 I feel we have better cameras. We do, maybe FD doesn't!
 
I usually get fps in the 50-60 range (usually high 50 range) but I also notice slowdowns in areas that you would not expect to have high graphics load, such as when opening the universe map, which drops me into the 15-20 fps range momentarily before returning to the 50-60 range. I have also noticed that my fps is lower while docked at stations by around 5-10 fps which drops the fps into the low-50 fps range while I'm at the starport menu. Interestingly enough this goes back to the usual 50-60 range while in the outfitting screen. I suspect that some of this is caused because you are still rendering the station and other internal details while docked but I'm not sure why simply opening the starport menu would add significantly to the graphics load.

I also suspect that some resource-intensive tasks may be sent to the GPU in some cases which effectively slows down the fps for some reason. For example I wouldn't be surprised at all if the route mapping when you plot a jump route is actually processed by the GPU as the architecture for most GPUs tends to be good at these types of tasks (which is coincidentally why bitcoin miners repurpose their GPUs for bitcoin mining). I haven't noticed any fps slowdowns when plotting short routes but it would be interesting to see if the fps drops while plotting routes in dense stellar regions (such as near SagA). In general though the graphics coding in Elite is pretty efficient aside from the issues people were having with the planetary textures.

Snip>>> ...

I would go along with what you are saying for the most part.

My frame rates tend to stay pretty well locked in at 60 fps except for those same menu and map loading areas where I might see a 57 or 58 in one frame or two during the load, but that is totally normal behavior and to be expected. I'm running the game off my system disk which is a Samsung 950 PRO NVMe M.2 which loads the Galaxy map pretty much instantly (less than 1 second) and the System map in under 2 seconds depending on the system. So there are some areas of the game where high performance hardware is delivering the kind of results you would expect. But there are several other areas where I am not seeing the expected performance, and those are what I find strange and uncommon.

There was a thread on here last week that was referencing the strange and yet unresolved stutter, hitching, hiccups, glitching... or whatever you want to call it. It is an issue that lots of folks with high end machines are seeing, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with frame rates or frame time.

The responders to that thread by and large are running high end machines like mine with an overclocked 980ti being about the minimum GPU being used along with everything in the game's graphics section being set on maximum/ULTRA. Some settings actually even higher than Frontier's ULTRA PRESET.

Not sure if the problem is tied to high performance machines, the use of ULTRA across the board, or a combination of the two, but most who responded to that thread all reported this same strange issue which prevents the 100% smooth and fluid motion you would expect on machines like this, while at the same time reporting frame rates at a locked 60 fps or above.

I've personally never seen anything like this in any other game. Usually when you see a hitch in the animation there is a corresponding dip in frame rate and/or frame time. This is not the case here, and it has everyone who is experiencing it scratching their heads, and looking for answers/solutions. Frontier is playing dumb as if this is the first they have heard of it, but after comparing notes on the number of us who have submitted tickets and bug reports, Frontier is obviously WELL AWARE of the problem. Likely just as stumped as we are regarding the source of the problem.

My theory is that it all comes back to the core elements of the game (BGS) and/or the game engine not being finished/optimized to its full potential. The same background issue that may be causing the high GPU demand when displaying static in-game menus could also be responsible for these frequent stutters in the animation that occur deeper within the system than a fps monitor can detect.
 
Last edited:
I agree that if exploration was spiced by occasional discovery of something cool, it would be nice. I am confident that these things will come with aliens and atmospheric planets. Just hang in there. :)

For now, this is all the eye-candy I need:

<imagine snip>

Mmmm...that Type-6 painjob makes me want some peppermint candy. :D
 
Horizons has been around a while now, and i still feel we are lacking some proper nice eye candy content, for example:

wreck ships are still very few and far between
POI are still not great and hardy no anyone that really bothers with them now
Storage is still missing
Planet structures still look out of place and you still find them in some odd places !!
Ship scanning abilities for locating planet side are still very limited seeing as its 3302 :/

So i still want to ask frontier about a richer environment for the game, with all the new updates coming for this season maybe it's something that will come in time, but feel each time they add something it's a very limited affair, so lets see wrecks a common place after all its space it should be littered with full capital ship derelicts, of all sizes, lets make poi better and not random, and those buildings look weathered and like they belong on the ground not so new and polished?

Just a few personal ideas that i feel is Long over due..

This sounds like Milton Keynes
 
has paint wear been fixed yet?
volcanism?
shadows from ambient light? (also on settlements and ships)
what about those comets and meteors that were in game but invisible?

accretion discs?! anything?!!?!?!
 
has paint wear been fixed yet?
volcanism?
shadows from ambient light? (also on settlements and ships)
what about those comets and meteors that were in game but invisible?

accretion discs?! anything?!!?!?!

All supposedly a part of the season. But no, nothing so far and man, the ring shadows would be appreciated like hell!
And the volcanism might really be the "thing" explorers need.
 
Back
Top Bottom