How to improve the sense of scale of the galaxy within ED (Starfields)

[Jon93]

Hi ya'll

Am I the only one who thinks the galaxy looks really small compared to in other space sims? For example, comparing the Orion Nebula in Space Engine and Elite Dangerous the sense of scale is completely different:

SE: [you can change the settings in SE to make it look a lot like ED, but I'm referring to the settings used below]

ED:

Much of this seems to largely stem from:

1. Too few stars visible in galaxy backdrop of ED. Since the closest stars are actually rendered in their accurate positions in ED:s backdrop it might be a real performance hog to render thousands of them. So I suggest adding generic starfield backdrops instead for every major region of the galaxy. The actually rendered stars can then be superimposed on this field and we can keep the performance and loading times low while still getting the sense of scale SE has with its starfield backgrounds (although SE seems to have made it efficient either way).

2. Nebulae and interstellar gas are lower resolution or generated differently in ED. It looks like it would be much more worthwhile to adopt SE:s technique.

ED: (Horsehead nebula)

SE:

3. Nebulae and interstellar gas are too bright at distance: (they need to fade with distance)

ED:

SE:

Some nebulae arguably looks better in ED as there's only one developer for SE that hasn't had time to cover all local nebulae, but the sense of scale is the main concern here, which I think everyone can see is quite different for the two simulators/games.

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see higher-density starfields along with lower-intensity starlight, fading nebulae, etc. like in SE for ED?

 

[The Gael]

This is a great post. Unfortunately this forum seems to be empty of any replies from players and developers. Really makes me question the true intent of this entire forum. I'm gonna ask the steam forum to take a look at this thread. Great job Jon.

 

[afreeflyingsoul]

Part of the problem is the wide range of computing power available, FDev can't make the minimum requirements too high or they'd cut people off from the game.

 

[The Gael]

Part of the problem is the wide range of computing power available, FDev can't make the minimum requirements too high or they'd cut people off from the game.

This is the only logical reason behind this that i can think of. Although an option in the settings would go a long way. Wish they would alleviate my curiosity.

 

[Neutronium]

See this... However let's not blame E: D & Frontier entirely...

As I have posted in this thread E: D is an online game whereas SE is currently off-line. They have to be able to offer an acceptable fps experience while maintaining a reasonable hardware requirement and keep network resources and demands as low as possible. This is veeery tricky part. Also lets not forget the BGS and all little things that are running in the background at Frontier's galaxy server(s) and are constantly in sync with each & every one of us. SE is running autonomously and has no such requirements.

However I agree that Frontier must do better then what we have currently. And at no significant increase in hardware specs. And at no significant decrease in network and gameplay performance. I believe they can improve the game engine. After all it is a good thing they moved to 64-bit. This should give them significant headroom for eye-candy and visual improvements and at the same time give them the ability to squeeze these into current hardware specs and maintain performance at acceptable levels. Let's see what the future holds for us..

 

[The Gael]

See this... However let's not blame E: D & Frontier entirely...

As I have posted in this thread E: D is an online game whereas SE is currently off-line. They have to be able to offer an acceptable fps experience while maintaining a reasonable hardware requirement and keep network resources and demands as low as possible. This is veeery tricky part. Also lets not forget the BGS and all little things that are running in the background at Frontier's galaxy server(s) and are constantly in sync with each & every one of us. SE is running autonomously and has no such requirements.

However I agree that Frontier must do better then what we have currently. And at no significant increase in hardware specs. And at no significant decrease in network and gameplay performance. I believe they can improve the game engine. After all it is a good thing they moved to 64-bit. This should give them significant headroom for eye-candy and visual improvements and at the same time give them the ability to squeeze these into current hardware specs and maintain performance at acceptable levels. Let's see what the future holds for us..

+1 rep

 

[Jon93]

This is a great post. Unfortunately this forum seems to be empty of any replies from players and developers. Really makes me question the true intent of this entire forum. I'm gonna ask the steam forum to take a look at this thread. Great job Jon.

Indeed! And thanks!

I'm surprised there were even people downvoting a simple graphical enhancement without giving a reason for it...

See this... However let's not blame E: D & Frontier entirely...

/.../

This is the only logical reason behind this that i can think of. Although an option in the settings would go a long way. Wish they would alleviate my curiosity.

True. Which is why I suggested just reducing the intensity of starlight and adding generic starfield backdrops to give us this sense of scale and number. This shouldn't affect performance or anything.

 

[Magic Man]

Generic starfield backgrounds...? No thanks

 

[Jon93]

Generic starfield backgrounds...? No thanks

They're just hundreds or thousands of dots on a static background. You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference...

Are the exact number of dots in the sky so important? Even more important than the actual sense of scale that is possible as you can see above? Would you rather not have Space Engine's sense of scale instead of ED:s?

 

[Magic Man]

They're just hundreds or thousands of dots on a static background. You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference...

You know they are accurate 'dots' don't you? I.e. positionally accurate.
Would you prefer that your next jump point selected just appeared and and one of those random dots is simply selected to be it?

Are the exact number of dots in the sky so important?

Accurate 'dots' in the sky are, yes.

 

[Jon93]

You know they are accurate 'dots' don't you? I.e. positionally accurate.
Would you prefer that your next jump point selected just appeared and and one of those random dots is simply selected to be it?

Accurate 'dots' in the sky are, yes.

Again, read my solution. Superimpose the real starfield on the generic ones. Problem solved.

The ideal solution would just be to render more stars and make them dimmer though. (maybe add it as a graphical setting if it somehow affects performance)

And if you're concerned about "accurate dots in the sky" that you'll never be able to tell apart from fake ones then the game has already failed you since it still doesn't render them accurately (both by number of visible stars and their intensity). So what's the point with that argument?

 

[Loophole]

I'm happy with the current rendering in ED.

Its interesting to note that the rendering of the Orion Nebula (actually: Barnard's Loop) in ED (and maybe not in SE either?) is *not* the visible-light view of the nebula - i.e not what we see in the night sky - that's why you can't see Barnards Loop when you look up at the Orion consellation at night. See this video for some interesting background stuff: https://youtu.be/LL5L4VFgkdo

On a side note, in terms of sense-of-scale, I actually find that the greatest diminution to my sense of scale comes from the orbit lines, and to a lesser extent the hud symbology. I normally fly with the orbit lines turned off because I find that increases my feeling of the scale of a solar system. Turning off the hud entirely (CTRL+ALT+G) increases that sense even further. I'd love to be able to make those things fainter and/or smaller (without also fading the rest of the instruments and starport menu!)

 

[zackmck]

Great ideas, love the pictures.
My biggest issue with sense of scale maybe a Vive related one. Everything looks great in VR (Beluga is huuuuuge). Maybe it's just me but if i'm next to a star it looks kinda small. My estimation would be a sphere with a diameter of a few hundred meters. on the other hand Planets, Milky Way and nebulae are looking about the right size to me.

 

[Tryst]

What I would be more worried about is the lag caused by graphics rendering. Things like this are nice if you have the graphics capability to see it but a real nightmare for anyone else. Filtering the graphics often results in other things you do want to see being filtered out as well. I've had this with grass in 1st person games. Filter out the ground clutter that lags out your graphics and it also filters the grass as well so the end result is very outdated graphics you'd expect from an early 90's game. I can understand why, for such filters to be more specific also means a lot more programming.

If the standard gaming rig had a 1000 series graphics card, I'd be all for it but mine is still only a 750 Ti which would lag like crazy with this level of graphics. Upgrading to a 1000 series graphic card at the moment means spending as much on a graphics card alone as I spent to buy my entire rig. A 1080 is over £600 and I only spent £700 to buy my entire rig, listed in my sig (minus the monitor).

 

[xondk]

What are your thoughts? Would you like to see higher-density starfields along with lower-intensity starlight, fading nebulae, etc. like in SE for ED?

While I get what you are saying SE has made it clear, that they are showing things you would not be able to see with the visible eye, they even posted about such, because it is meant to be a sight seeing sim, so people want to see beautiful stuff, so they made that able to do so.

That being said, people have already proven that starfield can be modded and it does increase fidelity, and I most certainly agree with the concept of what you propose, but it already looks very very beautiful for a game, but I would love an option to increase it a notch or three, but it should be an option, because it can very easily get quite heavy.

 

[jamieboo]

Hugely agree with OP.
I've thought that since the PB days.

 

[Jaylem]

How did you start the 'Poll' at the top?!

I agree, every bit of detail is good detail. they look amazing as it is. why not go further?

 

[Cosmo]

Seconded. Some graphical enhancements (higher settings) for nebula is a great idea.

 

[NW3]

Part of the problem is the wide range of computing power available, FDev can't make the minimum requirements too high or they'd cut people off from the game.

That really shouldn't be an issue. I'd only expect that level of detail for the "ultra" in-game graphics setting.

What I would be more worried about is the lag caused by graphics rendering. Things like this are nice if you have the graphics capability to see it but a real nightmare for anyone else.

If the standard gaming rig had a 1000 series graphics card, I'd be all for it but mine is still only a 750 Ti which would lag like crazy with this level of graphics.

Someone with a system like your's should run "high" or "medium" and get a less detailed star field, so it shouldn't be a problem.