I don't like the new ice worlds.

[Deleted member 121570]

Fun is subjective, and games appeal to certain audiences as stated by their design goals.

Elite Dangerous is a space simulation, its aim is to be as realistic as possible (with exceptions in light speed travel). The galaxy itself is meant to be as real as known science can make it. You speak as if 'fun' is only applicable to canyon racing. What about the 'fun' of having a realistic galaxy? 'fun', honestly I think that word should be banned from discussions on anything game related.

Some of the 'fun' planets many are seemingly talking about from Horizons look completely absurd, and belong in No Man's Sky not Elite Dangerous.

Please stop with this limited concept of 'fun'. Canyon racers are not in fact the primary target audience, and the game was never designed for such people - please read the whole post here because it's important by the way - canyon racing can still be perfectly viable with realistic terrain, but it will need to move to things like cracked fissures on ice worlds. No, I don't think they should compromise the realism of the game for people who apparently don't care about that aspect.

Another path they could take is making actual race circuits. Either artificially carved into the rock of a planet, or structures in space. For that FD could handcraft them, even to the design wishes of the racers themselves.

I'm starting to see that I'm further away from the critical people of new planetary tech than I first thought. Yes, some of my criticisms overlap, but I'm starting to suspect many of those people aren't interested in realistic or believable landscapes.

Look, take in everything I've said because I KNOW, as it always happens, people focus in on things like "It isn't aimed at those people" as some terrible injustice without any elaboration and explanation.

I disagree I'm afraid. There are a huge number of completely fake and unrealistic elements in this game that are expressly there for purely the purposes of making it fun to play. It's really not a space simulator at all. It has sim-like bits, but to claim it's going for realism in that sense is far too far a stretch imo. That's just a rabbit hole of nitpickery.

You keep talking about canyon racing, and I don't know why. Any such activity has always been just something people did with the sandbox available to them, and to be honest - it's as valid as anything else. If there's still decent canyons to race in, I'm sure they'll find em, and they will - regardless of where they are. I haven't seen anything that is worthy of the activity yet. I have nothing to say about FDev's integration of racing into the game, other than that I'm sure if they did - it'll be farcically bad.

I've literally posted images of terrain on Earth that matches what's already also present in Horizons, albeit from different scale/processes/geology etc, so it's not at all 'unrealistic' to expect that what's on Earth would also be in different places. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there are different processes afoot on other worlds, maybe small, low-density bodies with significant tidal stresses and volcanism that'd lead to quite extreme stuff beyond the Earth pics and their stories of formation. It doesnt' violate any realism, and is far more 'believable' than FTL drives, instant galactic-spanning respawns in stations, 65+g survivable acceleration/deceleration in your ship, or instantaneous communications across the galaxy.

Most importantly of all though, and I'll say it again: Odyssey's engine has not made things more realistic. It's shrunk features, removed complexity, blended everything into yoghurt and wrapped it in plastic. In doing so, it's removed variation and stripped out gameplay potential that people enjoyed. I'm not telling you what's fun. I'm saying what I found fun, and I know that's shared by others too.

I don't like the new ice planets either

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

Terrain like this was carved out by rivers. For this to happen on another planet at the same scale with no or little atmosphere, the planet needs to die.

I'm sure out there somewhere will be the world of your dreams. Or Pomache will be re-sculptured so that you can haz funz and the rest of us can haz looky looky thingz that we likz.

Provide me some verifiable evidence that there were never any rivers at anytime during the evolution of any of those billions of planets. I'll wait.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I'm not saying exactly the same formations, history etc - I'm just saying that things exist and there are points of reference to draw from. I find it vanishingly unlikely that you're an expert on actual planet formation, composition and evolution over time either, I suspect. Even if you were, so what? This is a computer game

In the game now - Pom's already had the handcrafting pass that means it's a little better than everything else, but still altered into a state of meh.

It's clear that with the new engine, the generation of terrain that led to a variety of opportunities is gone. The scaling, height, mixture of stuff has been reduced.
I'm not saying you can't have your yoghurt and eat it. Enjoy your boring balls of hobbit-sized fun - it's good that you like them. But clearly; not everyone does.

I'd just like what was already there in Horizons to also be there now, cos that's supported some fun flying, and should still be in the game imo. It's not, and that's a cause for complaint.
What exactly is your complaint with the new terrain?

The reason I put it that way is because that it has always been FDevs aim to provide as realistic as possible geology - like going back in time and predicting the forces on a planet, age, gravity, plates, and producing a realistically sculptured and correctly aged planet with appropriate features.

No, I'm no expert. Dr Kay is - and the information I am feeding from is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/planetary-tech-with-dr-kay-ross-recap.565755/

Her take on the extreme features is this: "There is a reason why the features are shallower on larger planets. With the increased gravitational strains you can't maintain as tall a natural feature with the strength the material is made out of. so you'll end up with shallower features. I'm afraid it's just how the maths drops out for those, there's a good range of planets but the tiny ones tend to be able to support the more extreme terrain because the large things aren't being destroyed by the gravity pulling it down."

So according to Maths - and whether or not people like it, Maths is reality - extreme features are rare and reserved for tiny planets - likely moons. This means that according to a Dr... Odyssey is more accurate representation of the galaxy. Please show your credentials!

So my suggestion is... go find those tiny planets that have the extreme features that Dr Kay suggests that the maths tells her exist. When you do, once the jaggedness is fixed, the textures optimized, and FPS go up, you may find what you are looking for. Then we will all be happy, and I will be happy for you too. In fact, I am going to look out for them myself, though I probably don't play as much as everyone else. It took me over three years to buy my space cow, with which I am very happy, thank you for not asking.

 

[Agrar Therenus]

Exactly; when did the sandbox game and promotion of emergent gameplay where people found things to do for fun give way to adovocating for some sterile, misguidedly 'realistic' idea based purely on looking at pots of strawberry yogurt and aged ums take over?

Don't strawman the other side, you just damage your own credibility.

I want to see more impressive mountain ranges, and real canyons. Indeed I'd like to see narrow and deep icey fissures-- which would strangely enough make ideal raceways.

It's hardly misguided advocating for more realistic terrain - and by the way that is entirely measureable, because the laws of physics apply on the other side of the Milky Way just as much as they do in your bedroom - considering Elite Dangerous is supposed to be a 1:1 believable and scientifically researched creation of it. The enjoyment of this aspect of the game frankly should take precedence over the fun of racing, if that fun in racing is pushed at the expense of believability.

Why isn't it a completely doable goal to implement artifical raceways? They could even craft one or two fissure systems on well-known worlds just for the racers, and keep them realistic at the same time. I have zero problem with racing; but I would have problems with racing at the expense of convincing terrain (and I am perfectly justified in that because again the game has spefific design goals.)

Look. Anyone can play any game; but where I think I differ to most people these days is I don't think games should be designed for everyone-- because that makes a mess of a game that is watered down and ultimately mediocre for everyone.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Provide me some verifiable evidence that there were never any rivers at anytime during the evolution of any of those billions of planets. I'll wait.

You'll be waiting a long time for something I never promised to bring. I just suggested it was needed when the majority of planets (I am reliably told by an expert on this same thread) cannot have liquid on the surface because the pressures are too low.

 

[Valorin]

I present: the icy desert of Nefertem 5.

(That's a crystal cluster I shot off a fumerole.)

 

[Deleted member 121570]

The reason I put it that way is because that it has always been FDevs aim to provide as realistic as possible geology - like going back in time and predicting the forces on a planet, age, gravity, plates, and producing a realistically sculptured and correctly aged planet with appropriate features.

No, I'm no expert. Dr Kay is - and the information I am feeding from is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/planetary-tech-with-dr-kay-ross-recap.565755/

Her take on the extreme features is this: "There is a reason why the features are shallower on larger planets. With the increased gravitational strains you can't maintain as tall a natural feature with the strength the material is made out of. so you'll end up with shallower features. I'm afraid it's just how the maths drops out for those, there's a good range of planets but the tiny ones tend to be able to support the more extreme terrain because the large things aren't being destroyed by the gravity pulling it down."

So according to Maths - and whether or not people like it, Maths is reality - extreme features are rare and reserved for tiny planets - likely moons. This means that according to a Dr... Odyssey is more accurate representation of the galaxy. Please show your credentials!

So my suggestion is... go find those tiny planets that have the extreme features that Dr Kay suggests that the maths tells her exist. When you do, once the jaggedness is fixed, the textures optimized, and FPS go up, you may find what you are looking for. Then we will all be happy, and I will be happy for you too. In fact, I am going to look out for them myself, though I probably don't play as much as everyone else. It took me over three years to buy my space cow, with which I am very happy, thank you for not asking.

That's exactly what I"m trying to tell you. There aren't any anymore. There were in Horizons. Now they're gone.
Dr Kay clearly got it right then, but something's gone very wrong indeed.

Don't strawman the other side, you just damage your own credibility.

I want to see more impressive mountain ranges, and real canyons. Indeed I'd like to see narrow and deep icey fissures-- which would strangely enough make ideal raceways.

It's hardly misguided advocating for more realistic terrain - and by the way that is entirely measureable, because the laws of physics apply on the other side of the Milky Way just as much as they do in your bedroom - considering Elite Dangerous is supposed to be a 1:1 believable and scientifically researched creation of it. The enjoyment of this aspect of the game frankly should take precedence over the fun of racing, if that fun in racing is pushed at the expense of believability.

Why isn't it a completely doable goal to implement artifical raceways? They could even craft one or two fissure systems on well-known worlds just for the racers, and keep them realistic at the same time. I have zero problem with racing; but I would have problems with racing at the expense of convincing terrain (and I am perfectly justified in that because again the game has spefific design goals.)

Look. Anyone can play any game; but where I think I differ to most people these days is I don't think games should be designed for everyone-- because that makes a mess of a game that is watered down and ultimately mediocre for everyone.

I didn't claim to have any credibility, just an opinion. And you're still talking about racing for some reason.
I just want the variety that there was to be retained, given that clearly the model before was based on realistic rules

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

I present: the icy desert of Nefertem 5.
View attachment 230394View attachment 230395View attachment 230396
(That's a crystal cluster I shot off a fumerole.)

It's a shame you can shoot off these crystals and other mineables, but can't collect them on foot. The minerals from Chrondite feel like they should be collectable... but seeing you next to that crystal... nah!

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

You'll be waiting a long time for something I never promised to bring. I just suggested it was needed when the majority of planets (I am reliably told by an expert on this same thread) cannot have liquid on the surface because the pressures are too low.

Forgive me if I think fake forum scientists are full of

 

[Agrar Therenus]

I disagree I'm afraid. There are a huge number of completely fake and unrealistic elements in this game that are expressly there for purely the purposes of making it fun to play. It's really not a space simulator at all. It has sim-like bits, but to claim it's going for realism in that sense is far too far a stretch imo. That's just a rabbit hole of nitpickery.

You keep talking about canyon racing, and I don't know why. Any such activity has always been just something people did with the sandbox available to them, and to be honest - it's as valid as anything else. If there's still decent canyons to race in, I'm sure they'll find em, and they will - regardless of where they are. I haven't seen anything that is worthy of the activity yet. I have nothing to say about FDev's integration of racing into the game, other than that I'm sure if they did - it'll be farcically bad.

I've literally posted images of terrain on Earth that matches what's already also present in Horizons, albeit from different scale/processes/geology etc, so it's not at all 'unrealistic' to expect that what's on Earth would also be in different places. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there are different processes afoot on other worlds, maybe small, low-density bodies with significant tidal stresses and volcanism that'd lead to quite extreme stuff beyond the Earth pics and their stories of formation. It doesnt' violate any realism, and is far more 'believable' than FTL drives, instant galactic-spanning respawns in stations, 65+g survivable acceleration/deceleration in your ship, or instantaneous communications across the galaxy.

Most importantly of all though, and I'll say it again: Odyssey's engine has not made things more realistic. It's shrunk features, removed complexity, blended everything into yoghurt and wrapped it in plastic. In doing so, it's removed variation and stripped out gameplay potential that people enjoyed. I'm not telling you what's fun. I'm saying what I found fun, and I know that's shared by others too.

I don't like the new ice planets either

Yes, FTL, commications and crafting.

What, how could a game work where it takes years and years to get to a nearby star? Same amount of time to send a reply of course in chat.

There is a crucial difference. The universe itself is a seperate equation to the technology. A game just wouldn't work if we couldn't have magic game technology; but a game can work perfectly well with a believable galaxy, worlds and such.

I have actually stated that on balance Odyssey loks no better than Horizons, because in many ways both look better and inferior in different ways. I will say though, if Odyssey gets a boost to larger mountain ranges, better textures on them, and real canyons it'd trounce Horizons' planets. Oh yes and something is clearly going wrong with load-ins at medium altitudes. However, on the ground the textures look WAY better than Horizons-- that's usually I'll say, because clearly there are many bugs and broken tiling and such. Ground scatter looks HORRIBLE in Horizons, with the weird little rocks that look completely out of place (and I don't mean dropstones from glaciars but dropstones from another game).

One needs to look at Oddsey's terrain when it is clearly working as intended.

I also disagree that Horizons had more complex landscapes. It had more dramatic features, yes, but that isn't complexity. Also it lacked localised formations as much as Odyssey does-- that would be complexity.

Yes well in games one can't just blankly use the argument "I find this fun so it should be in it." because again games aren't buffets-- they are designed with specific goals in mind (though that is eroding) and as such one person's fun might compromise that vision. It would be like arguing "I think Pride & Prejudice would be more fun if it had aliens in it." which is a valid statement, but should it be taken on board?

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

That's exactly what I"m trying to tell you. There aren't any anymore. There were in Horizons. Now they're gone.
Dr Kay clearly got it right then, but something's gone very wrong indeed.



I didn't claim to have any credibility, just an opinion. And you're still talking about racing for some reason.
I just want the variety that there was to be retained, given that clearly the model before was based on realistic rules

The horizons planetary tech model was blasted the moment it came out the door. They called it the beige curse. They had done the maths and calculated the range of colours, but there were rage quits and mega threads about it - FDev relented and moved away from realism.

Dr Kay - who you said has clearly got it right - says this: The system we made for Horizons was good for Horizons, I'm very proud of what the team did and the results you can get from it. But to look forward to whatever comes next for Odyssey, I wanted a system that was robust enough to handle things without having to do another remake of any of the tech, that's why it's changed and we have all that detail.

Horizons was built as consecutive square patches with height maps (I paraphrase) curved into a ball. One of the most obvious problems with this is evident when you take off in Horizons. You get the local height when you take off the surface, but as soon as you enter supercruise it switches to average ball height and sometimes it goes negative, mass locking you. It was an illusion of brilliant scale and mathematics. But it's not suitable for space feet. To read between the lines: Horizons tech could not properly scale up.

The new module maths precludes excessive heights because that's more realistic, not less. Not me that's saying that, that's the good Dr.

 

[Valorin]

It's a shame you can shoot off these crystals and other mineables, but can't collect them on foot. The minerals from Chrondite feel like they should be collectable... but seeing you next to that crystal... nah!

Carry a rock the size of my torso?!? I rather not.
I'd love to be able to identify it though.

Also, more pictures:

I spent the whole day doing nothing else but landing on planets and looking around and the more I see, the more impressive it gets actually.
I still have to see deeper canyons and so on but... It's actually amazing. Even ice worlds very rarely look the same.
Sometimes there's just empty desert, then, on the same planet, scatter rocks galore and ravines. Really, I'm doing this all day now and it's fun! Oo

EDIT:
Same planet, different location:

 

[[PS4] Filthymick420]

That's exactly what I"m trying to tell you. There aren't any anymore. There were in Horizons. Now they're gone.
Dr Kay clearly got it right then, but something's gone very wrong indeed.



I didn't claim to have any credibility, just an opinion. And you're still talking about racing for some reason.
I just want the variety that there was to be retained, given that clearly the model before was based on realistic rules

His argument would just look like a unfinished 'mad-lib' if he didnt cling to something

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Carry a rock the size of my torso?!? I rather not.
I'd love to be able to identify it though.

Also, more pictures: View attachment 230423

View attachment 230424
View attachment 230425

I spent the whole day doing nothing else but landing on planets and looking around and the more I see, the more impressive it gets actually.
I still have to see deeper canyons and so on but... It's actually amazing. Even ice worlds very rarely look the same.
Sometimes there's just empty desert, then, on the same planet, scatter rocks galore and ravines. Really, I'm doing this all day now and it's fun! Oo

EDIT:
Same planet, different location:
View attachment 230434

Actually, yes that. The alternative use for the sampling tool should be a composition scanner... or perhaps the profile scanner mixed with an artemis suit should ditch the profile copier and second as the composition scanner...

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Yes, FTL, commications and crafting.

What, how could a game work where it takes years and years to get to a nearby star? Same amount of time to send a reply of course in chat.

There is a crucial difference. The universe itself is a seperate equation to the technology. A game just wouldn't work if we couldn't have magic game technology; but a game can work perfectly well with a believable galaxy, worlds and such.

I have actually stated that on balance Odyssey loks no better than Horizons, because in many ways both look better and inferior in different ways. I will say though, if Odyssey gets a boost to larger mountain ranges, better textures on them, and real canyons it'd trounce Horizons' planets. Oh yes and something is clearly going wrong with load-ins at medium altitudes. However, on the ground the textures look WAY better than Horizons-- that's usually I'll say, because clearly there are many bugs and broken tiling and such. Ground scatter looks HORRIBLE in Horizons, with the weird little rocks that look completely out of place (and I don't mean dropstones from glaciars but dropstones from another game).

One needs to look at Oddsey's terrain when it is clearly working as intended.

I also disagree that Horizons had more complex landscapes. It had more dramatic features, yes, but that isn't complexity. Also it lacked localised formations as much as Odyssey does-- that would be complexity.

Yes well in games one can't just blankly use the argument "I find this fun so it should be in it." because again games aren't buffets-- they are designed with specific goals in mind (though that is eroding) and as such one person's fun might compromise that vision. It would be like arguing "I think Pride & Prejudice would be more fun if it had aliens in it." which is a valid statement, but should it be taken on board?

Well, someone did write Pride, Prejudice and Zombies! It's a sandbox, but yeah - if they're into closing down emergent opporunities, that's clearly a shift. Some new stuff, lose some old stuff.

The horizons planetary tech model was blasted the moment it came out the door. They called it the beige curse. They had done the maths and calculated the range of colours, but there were rage quits and mega threads about it - FDev relented and moved away from realism.

Dr Kay - who you said has clearly got it right - says this: The system we made for Horizons was good for Horizons, I'm very proud of what the team did and the results you can get from it. But to look forward to whatever comes next for Odyssey, I wanted a system that was robust enough to handle things without having to do another remake of any of the tech, that's why it's changed and we have all that detail.

Horizons was built as consecutive square patches with height maps (I paraphrase) curved into a ball. One of the most obvious problems with this is evident when you take off in Horizons. You get the local height when you take off the surface, but as soon as you enter supercruise it switches to average ball height and sometimes it goes negative, mass locking you. It was an illusion of brilliant scale and mathematics. But it's not suitable for space feet. To read between the lines: Horizons tech could not properly scale up.

The new module maths precludes excessive heights because that's more realistic, not less. Not me that's saying that, that's the good Dr.

Yeah, the old beigeness was bad and it's good they altered it. After that tho, it rocked )

Regardless though, my view is that they've buggered up the balancing and that every new planet just looks boring. I don't think it's more realistic at all, with the smoothed off edges and has gone too far in the flattening. Also, there's literally no reason to go trying to push the envelope of the planetary flight model anymore, given the absence of challenging terrain - and that's a very sad loss of capacity in game. It was cool.

Enjoy the mundane 'realism' I guess! One less challenge in the game.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Oh, and I feel I should probably leave this here as relevant

New Planet Tech is KILLER of Exploration (all terrain is tiling/repeating/not procedural/random)

UPDATE: Planetary terrain prefabs are now also being discovered to be reused between planets: UPDATE: Looking at the high number of reported planets. I have gone ahead and created an issue tracker for this one. I urge everybody to go ahead and tick "can replicate" with as many examples as...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Agrar Therenus]

Well, someone did write Pride, Prejudice and Zombies! It's a sandbox, but yeah - if they're into closing down emergent opporunities, that's clearly a shift. Some new stuff, lose some old stuff.



Yeah, the old beigeness was bad and it's good they altered it. After that tho, it rocked )

Regardless though, my view is that they've buggered up the balancing and that every new planet just looks boring. I don't think it's more realistic at all, with the smoothed off edges and has gone too far in the flattening. Also, there's literally no reason to go trying to push the envelope of the planetary flight model anymore, given the absence of challenging terrain - and that's a very sad loss of capacity in game. It was cool.

Enjoy the mundane 'realism' I guess! One less challenge in the game.

They're not intentionally making planets more boring. I mean look at our own solar system-- who thinks that's boring? To tone things down is not 'Yoghurtification' as you or someone else put it, and I think that is just bugs and weirdness with textures. I think things have just gone too far the other way, which is no better or worse than Horizons which I think allowed for extremes that look like Christmas tree decorations rather than planets.

I've been looking around for interesting features on planets, and yes, there is a lack of localised variation. When I say that I mean one region where there's a huge canyon, or a gigantic mountain or extinct volcano or something. There are far too many badland areas dotted around. There's also a lack of clear liquid channels created by say lava, or maybe even water if it's an exinct world like Mars.

I don't see why the game can't generate Mars-likes where it likely had a substantial atmosphere and a water cycle billions of years ago.

Well yes planets aren't formed to make challenging competitions for pilots, and I think the game should reflect that. However, planets should by pure rolls of the dice have formations, in specific regions, that are amenable to such challenges. It's an obvious difference but I suspect people aren't contemplating it fully.

Anyway I find that person's lack of confidence in FD being able to make a decent race-way a bit unfair. Why do I bring up racing? Well, I don't see what else is actuall effected by this other than pure exploration of interesting worlds-- which is something I am in agreement with anyway. My disagreement is about what is wrong in details and how it should be addressed.

To some degree the mundane is a natural part of simulations. It's just part of the genre-- it is about the nitty gritty and the full 'real' experience. It isn't like Horizon Zero Dawn which is about action bang and prettiness all in a nice theme park "Overt your eyes from that ugly brick town Jack.". Maybe this is something people also forget?

It's almost neither-here-nor-there me arguing these points anyway, because I think if they cranked up the numbers a bit to generate a few more dramatic features everyone should - in theory - be happy. I don't want to see the old Pomeche back though. That kind of thing should be limited to large asteroids, where there just isn't enough gravity to squash it into a ball or close-to-spherical, which by the way I would like to also see in the game.

Oh yes another thing I don't like is the completely flattened areas around planetary bases. I imagine it's all the headaches of clipping into the buildings that you can now go in, but surely they could've done something.

 

[khalismur]

Must be an unpopular opinion but the "plastic" or "wet/melting ice" in most screenshots is this thread look terrible. Odyssey landable planets will likely not have enough atmospheric pressure for liquids to form. "wet ice" reflections are not realistic at all and look very gooey.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

They're not intentionally making planets more boring. I mean look at our own solar system-- who thinks that's boring? To tone things down is not 'Yoghurtification' as you or someone else put it, and I think that is just bugs and weirdness with textures. I think things have just gone too far the other way, which is no better or worse than Horizons which I think allowed for extremes that look like Christmas tree decorations rather than planets.

I've been looking around for interesting features on planets, and yes, there is a lack of localised variation. When I say that I mean one region where there's a huge canyon, or a gigantic mountain or extinct volcano or something. There are far too many badland areas dotted around. There's also a lack of clear liquid channels created by say lava, or maybe even water if it's an exinct world like Mars.

I don't see why the game can't generate Mars-likes where it likely had a substantial atmosphere and a water cycle billions of years ago.

Well yes planets aren't formed to make challenging competitions for pilots, and I think the game should reflect that. However, planets should by pure rolls of the dice have formations, in specific regions, that are amenable to such challenges. It's an obvious difference but I suspect people aren't contemplating it fully.

Anyway I find that person's lack of confidence in FD being able to make a decent race-way a bit unfair. Why do I bring up racing? Well, I don't see what else is actuall effected by this other than pure exploration of interesting worlds-- which is something I am in agreement with anyway. My disagreement is about what is wrong in details and how it should be addressed.

To some degree the mundane is a natural part of simulations. It's just part of the genre-- it is about the nitty gritty and the full 'real' experience. It isn't like Horizon Zero Dawn which is about action bang and prettiness all in a nice theme park "Overt your eyes from that ugly brick town Jack.". Maybe this is something people also forget?

It's almost neither-here-nor-there me arguing these points anyway, because I think if they cranked up the numbers a bit to generate a few more dramatic features everyone should - in theory - be happy. I don't want to see the old Pomeche back though. That kind of thing should be limited to large asteroids, where there just isn't enough gravity to squash it into a ball or close-to-spherical, which by the way I would like to also see in the game.

Oh yes another thing I don't like is the completely flattened areas around planetary bases. I imagine it's all the headaches of clipping into the buildings that you can now go in, but surely they could've done something.

Of course they aren't formed to make challenging competitions for pilots - they're just planets. It's just somethign people do with them, and could. Using imagination and having fun with what was provided. Fine, you didn't like some aspects, but guess what - them existing didn't impact you, and gave gameplay to others. Your dislike of them as somehow violating your own internal realism meter seems of significantly less importance to me than the fact lots of people spent thousands of hours playing on those things you didn't like. To advocate for their removal on that basis seems rather selfish. Wasn't doin' you any harm but hey - you didn't like the idea so get rid of it?

It doesn't matter anyway. They're gone, lots of us can't play that way anymore, and instead you've got simplified balls of yoghurt that are now just based on identical replicating tiles. Be happy?

Source: https://youtu.be/M0eWawTdt_w

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

Must be an unpopular opinion but the "plastic" or "wet/melting ice" in most screenshots is this thread look terrible. Odyssey landable planets will likely not have enough atmospheric pressure for liquids to form. "wet ice" reflections are not realistic at all and look very gooey.

I agree that they are too gooey looking. I wonder how they came to represent that and what materials. Do different ices behave in different ways perhaps. If you just have water ice on earth, it's translucent and reflective even without melting. It's only if there is snow does the albedo climb but the reflectivity goes down. That's why there is such as thing as snow blindness, the albedo is around 0.9.

Here's a selection of RL pictures showing the sun reflecting off water ice/snow

Ice should reflect light.

I must admit to not liking the way it's represented, but would love to know what they were thinking. They may end up being right if it's something other than water ice.