The lod is outrageously bad IMO. I don't know what they messed up, but that's what it is. On the ground it look very different, in space all the planet look the same. You have like 4 patterns.
I don't like the new ice worlds.
- Thread starter jammedhamed
- Start date
True as well LOD is a factor here. And yes almost all planets look the same. When you look at screenshots from ppl notice always that big crater ...ugh...
But really, the worse is that people see it and still defend this mess...
I've literally screenshoted the big crater planet. I have 4 of them who look the same now.
I think they messed up with the lod. Once it's fixed, we may have a very different galaxy, and a better one.
Well every planet does have this big crater so they didn't lie
Why is everything constantly greyThere are lots and lots of canyons spanning the whole planet, some big enough to hide a fleet carrier, others more narrow.
Here's the planet from orbit. Needed to resize the picture because of that 1mb limit here...:
View attachment 230265
View attachment 230266
I'll hop into the cockpit and shoot on.
Also: I didn't post these pictures to prove a point or anything. I was just happy about the canyons!
This video illustrates my problem with the stars lightning... this has to be a bug, what kind of game developer would want this on purpose? I believe they will fix it... this can't be the final product... I hope its not.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvdZimM8_n0
Mars's Valles Marinaris is 10km deep in some places, but it's also as straight as a rule and wide enough that if some of these moaners came across it in ED they would say it was pants.
Horizons had this problem when it launched. FDev desired to go more realistic with the planetary gen, and the result was more realistically coloured planets with less exaggerated and gamey features and colours. They backtracked and we got this:
Truly flat ice-rink surfaces, crazy colours, and exaggerated height maps just like the original ED (but with copy-pasta, GPS marked, same-as geological and biological fields). So they had to change it for the vocal, review bombing, racing crew.
Now FDev are trying to introduce a completely new Planetary tech and it's got massive potential, and the vocal, review bombing, racing crew are furious that their toys are being taken away and our pointing to the lack of optimsation as a way of leveraging their opinion over the thousands of less vocal solo explorer players who are happy to see this grow.
So, because they have an end-game in sight, even when confronted with encouraging and reasonable shots of planetary tech, they, out of pride and a sense of purpose, will not concede to any point. At which point, it's not even worth talking because all they hear is "blah, blah, blah, not Horizons."
So I don't care if you don't like it. Go play SC or space engineers or Kerbal Space program. One thing is for certain, you'll be back.
Horizons had this problem when it launched. FDev desired to go more realistic with the planetary gen, and the result was more realistically coloured planets with less exaggerated and gamey features and colours. They backtracked and we got this:
Now FDev are trying to introduce a completely new Planetary tech and it's got massive potential, and the vocal, review bombing, racing crew are furious that their toys are being taken away and our pointing to the lack of optimsation as a way of leveraging their opinion over the thousands of less vocal solo explorer players who are happy to see this grow.
So, because they have an end-game in sight, even when confronted with encouraging and reasonable shots of planetary tech, they, out of pride and a sense of purpose, will not concede to any point. At which point, it's not even worth talking because all they hear is "blah, blah, blah, not Horizons."
So I don't care if you don't like it. Go play SC or space engineers or Kerbal Space program. One thing is for certain, you'll be back.
Last edited:
Yes, but the slopes are still very steep and you'd see them. Just look at some Mars pictures of it. I've not seen anything even a 10th of the size.Mars's Valles Marinaris is 10km deep in some places, but it's also as straight as a rule and wide enough that if some of these moaners came across it in ED they would say it was pants.
Horizons had this problem when it launched. FDev desired to go more realistic with the planetary gen, and the result was more realistically coloured planets with less exaggerated and gamey features and colours. They backtracked and we got this:
Truly flat ice-rink surfaces, crazy colours, and exaggerated height maps just like the original ED (but with copy-pasta, GPS marked, same-as geological and biological fields). So they had to change it for the vocal, review bombing, racing crew.
Now FDev are trying to introduce a completely new Planetary tech and it's got massive potential, and the vocal, review bombing, racing crew are furious that their toys are being taken away and our pointing to the lack of optimsation as a way of leveraging their opinion over the thousands of less vocal solo explorer players who are happy to see this grow.
So, because they have an end-game in sight, even when confronted with encouraging and reasonable shots of planetary tech, they, out of pride and a sense of purpose, will not concede to any point. At which point, it's not even worth talking because all they hear is "blah, blah, blah, not Horizons."
So I don't care if you don't like it. Go play SC or space engineers or Kerbal Space program. One thing is for certain, you'll be back.
No, people are in fact being VERY specific about what they don't like, and see as not working properly. Of course they shouldn't listen to "It'e broken/bad fix it." kinds of comments, but you can't dismiss those if they are paired with actually details.
Believe this or not but overall I'd say Odssey's planets look about the same as Horizons', giving and taken the flaws of each. The point is they said this was supposed to be a new and better system, and overall it isn't-- and there are some flaws that stand out much more because the stuff that works looks good.
Last edited:
Because it's... ice? It's not supposed to be colourful. It's also far from the main star.Why is everything constantly grey
Planet surfaces are not known for being particularly colourful in reality. Usually there are one or two colours which are dominant even on rocky planets.
Look at Mars. It's red. Just red with different hues.
And before people come up with pictures where that is different: there are exceptions. To almost everything.
This is the best I found so far:I'll just leave that here : snow planet, promised above, delivered below.
Source reddit :
As for ice planet, this is what was promised, artwork this time :
This is what I had :
The cliff middle left have a serious case of texture stretching to.
There were much better ones in the Alpha. But since there are billions of those out there, I might find one that matches those. We'll see.
EDIT:
Col 285 Sector FG-N c7-26 8h
The planet itself is not very exciting actually. I really love the ring though. It looks great how it shines through the atmosphere and the snow textures and reflections are awesome as well. What I'm missing is more rocks and variety in terrain.
Found lots of scatter rocks on other planets though.
Last edited:
Well, craters are fine. I've just been one on Callisto that definitely over 25km deep.
Honestly could you show it from internal views so you can see the panels and stuff-- it gives a better sense of scale. Exterior views there is no frame of reference.
This one's hard to match actually. The light exposure and all is brilliant. I saw something similar in Alpha so far, other than that, my best take is the one a few posts above. So far.
I actually think this might be out there, but matching all the requirements, like planet type, blue atmosphere, star type and luminosity, might be hard.
I'm not sure. This looks more realistic to me than the Horizons version:
It could have come straight out of Star Wars. I don't have a lot of play time, so it's a small sample. Even in Horizons it was an exception for me to find these highly sculptured and scarred planets.
I deliberately set down next to a ridge of mountains/hills. These are just over 1km high.
And this is what they look like from the ground:
On the far side of these mountains were what looked like river channels (or more likely debris channels?) and debris at the bottom, just as you said their should be.
Please excuse the space cow's shadow.
As a comparison I present my native mountains - the Wicklow Mountains in Ireland. Maximum elevation: 925m - These mountains above are higher than some mountains on Earth.
As you say, there is some work to be done, but there are features in Odyssey that are not in Horizons at all. Overall, I think what I am seeing is better. I stand there and look at the landscape and it is believable. Horizons, not so much, but fun? Perhaps they were more fun.
Optimization for lower end systems will come (it has to, they want it to run on consoles.) In the meantime, if people prefer the Horizons Gen so much, they can still choose it while the Odyssey generator goes through optimization and revolution. I, for one, hope they don't ruin it by switching back to the dull, monotonous, exaggerated, over-coloured landscapes in Horizons, because they are just not believable - not when you see what is possible in Odyssey!
Last edited:
To sum up there are some things that look very good. There are still very deep craters; scattered rocks look good, the difference in density perhaps is it's more localised and not all over the planet, as I've found dense patches; the ground textures for the most part look very good, and out in plains it looks very convincing. I do think they should toned down the excesses of Horizons, for instance Pomeche which does look like a cartoon planet-- but they should've done it more subtely and reduced the frequency of the extreme features to localised areas.
The bad. Textures on mountains look off, especially on ice worlds-- they stand out horribly against the nearby 'flat' snowy or icey textures of the plains. There doesn't seem to be sharp or harsh edged cliffs on either mountains or canyons, there doesn't seem to be any truly deep canyons and very few tall mountains, also a big issue is the engine doesn't seem to support overhanging geological features or for instance naturally eroded doorways in rock formations (I mean wind erosion still plays a big part on even the thinnest atmospheres)-- resulting in very blobby and samey looking raises of any kind in the terrain.
The bad. Textures on mountains look off, especially on ice worlds-- they stand out horribly against the nearby 'flat' snowy or icey textures of the plains. There doesn't seem to be sharp or harsh edged cliffs on either mountains or canyons, there doesn't seem to be any truly deep canyons and very few tall mountains, also a big issue is the engine doesn't seem to support overhanging geological features or for instance naturally eroded doorways in rock formations (I mean wind erosion still plays a big part on even the thinnest atmospheres)-- resulting in very blobby and samey looking raises of any kind in the terrain.
Deleted member 121570
D
Mars's Valles Marinaris is 10km deep in some places, but it's also as straight as a rule and wide enough that if some of these moaners came across it in ED they would say it was pants.
Horizons had this problem when it launched. FDev desired to go more realistic with the planetary gen, and the result was more realistically coloured planets with less exaggerated and gamey features and colours. They backtracked and we got this:
Truly flat ice-rink surfaces, crazy colours, and exaggerated height maps just like the original ED (but with copy-pasta, GPS marked, same-as geological and biological fields). So they had to change it for the vocal, review bombing, racing crew.
Now FDev are trying to introduce a completely new Planetary tech and it's got massive potential, and the vocal, review bombing, racing crew are furious that their toys are being taken away and our pointing to the lack of optimsation as a way of leveraging their opinion over the thousands of less vocal solo explorer players who are happy to see this grow.
So, because they have an end-game in sight, even when confronted with encouraging and reasonable shots of planetary tech, they, out of pride and a sense of purpose, will not concede to any point. At which point, it's not even worth talking because all they hear is "blah, blah, blah, not Horizons."
So I don't care if you don't like it. Go play SC or space engineers or Kerbal Space program. One thing is for certain, you'll be back.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with most of what you've written in this post.
Pulling out the example of one of the largest canyon complexes in the solar system as some kinda 'ooh - look - a big wide one!' is hilarious. Of course it'd be crap - basically a mega-freeway around the planet. Not very challenging to fly though, eh? I'm sure places like Europa in reality might yield a bit more nutty stuff. Some straight, and some anything but.
In Horizons, it's fun to fly around stuff. In Odyssey, there's nothing fun to fly around. There's a difference. The loss of fun. In a game.
Having said that, there's very few racers that have contributed to this thread - I'm certainly not one these days - and 'racers' haven't review bombed anything. You just made that up. I do remember complaint about the changes to the SRV handling model though...
You seem to have a real problem in misunderstanding legitimate complaint. I get it - you don't like people complaining and disagreeing with you, but that's because you know you're defending garbage. I'm sure nobody actually cares whether or not you care specifically, but it's nice you're sharing a view on how you see people's complaints. It's a little off topic tho, tbh.
For myself at least, if someone posts a screenshot that's actually showing something interesting, or indicative of something that'd be actually challenging to fly around, then sure - I'd engage positively with that. In fact, I did last night with the 7.5km mountain pic, until the poster reflected that it went to crap when close. The "completely new Planetary tech' seem only capable of producing dumbed-down and boring terrain. Screenshots of shallow straight runs merely demonstrate this.
Of course anyone who didn't play because of the new crappy terrain would be back if they fix the crappy terrain. That's the whole point of discussing the flaws in the new and wanting them sorted. I can't understand your issue with people that speak up and point out the flaws that you don't care about.
Posting a few pics of rolling Irish hills is nice but definitely indicates a penchant for the rounded and low. No Himalayas, Andes, Alps?
This looks infinitely more fun to fly a spaceship around tbh, and is what 7.5km high mountains should look like.
Up high:
Down low:
You know...proper mountain and badlands-type terrain. Not just straight contintental-scale canyons at knee-height.
To be honest - neither did Horizon support overhangs and they said again this time round - no overhangs. And it took them some time to get to the sharp formations in Horizons. Iirc they were not there on release. I have a feeling they have eased this engine in, and we are likely to see them return. Some texturing correction and optimization needs to be done to be sure.
In the livestream, they did say they would be adding back canyons, so it looks like the new engine did not have them at all.
Discussion. It's all about discussion. You bring your point, I'll bring mine. From my point of view and playstyle - it's better. I'm showing how it's better. I'm showing colourful terrain with better features, and people reply back with "it's all beige." I ask what people should be seeing from someone who is geologically minded (and open to discussion) and I'm going and looking for those features (and finding some of them.)
The "I'm not going to listen to anyone because it's not my opinion" is happening on both sides of the table @Sanderling not just me.
I have already agreed that it might not be the "fun" you are used to with the playdough, over-coloured, exaggerated canyons and over-tall mountains (some so tall you could drive off them into space... releastic? No. Fun? I'm sure.)
Overall, for me, and countering some of the "it's boring, beige and flat" with "it's actually more realistic, look at this" is the way my discussion is taking me.
As for Europa, if you scale up those stripes, I wonder exactly how big they are! Would you accuse God of making a planet with knee high canyons not fun enough?
The "I'm not going to listen to anyone because it's not my opinion" is happening on both sides of the table @Sanderling not just me.
I have already agreed that it might not be the "fun" you are used to with the playdough, over-coloured, exaggerated canyons and over-tall mountains (some so tall you could drive off them into space... releastic? No. Fun? I'm sure.)
Overall, for me, and countering some of the "it's boring, beige and flat" with "it's actually more realistic, look at this" is the way my discussion is taking me.
As for Europa, if you scale up those stripes, I wonder exactly how big they are! Would you accuse God of making a planet with knee high canyons not fun enough?
Deleted member 121570
D
I quite agree that discussion is indeed the point, and I'm not falsely accusing anyone else of things like review bombing etc in a bid to devalue their opinion.
I am definitely open to listen and to engage with images posted, but I just disagree that it's either more realistic or better in any way. Whilst 'flat' might be hyperbole, the elevation maps on terrain have clearly changed dramatically, and much for the worse. Literally everything is lower and rescaled for foot. This has damaged the variety of terrain available on planets, and there have been no examples provided of anything that refutes this, sadly.
It's not about canyons. It's about shrinkage, which is not more realistic. It's about defined edges being lost, which is not more realistic. And the yoghurt thing is just an embarrassment to FDev. The Europa pic was to show linear variation (eg. not all straight lines), and the mountain pics to show elevation varation - which is now pretty much gone.
The new system is painfully inadequate in comparison to how Horizons managed these things. I get it - it's nicer for people on feet/wheels, and can produce pretty screenshots in certain circumstances, but it's degraded the game significantly imo, which is why I'm here talking about it.
There's a lot of things in this game that aren't remotely realistic. Getting hung up on realism purely for the sake of it means playing something else, as you suggest. I'm more concerned about how changes just reduce the fun in this game. I just want there to be fun stuff to fly around, challenging the pilot and providing gameplay.
I'm not ignoring the screenshots and videos people post - but they all show pretty much the same thing. Mediocrity in elevation and linear variety, compared to the wealth of variety there was in Horizons. It's not my fault if people keep posting shots showing the same thing. Post something different?
Without getting into religious stuff - short answer is yes. I would. Loudly.