If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.

[M00ka]

Unless, of course, it isn't, because the ADS is not compatible with that new stuff being added, in which case, its removal was necessary.

Exactly, to my way of thinking it is when my country went from analogue TV to digital TV, suddenly all the old TV's wouldn't work without a converter.

So just think of the new tools as digital, our ships have had the necessary upgrades to be able to use them, but the old analogue ADS just won't work with the new technology.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Yes, but - and this bit is entirely subjective personal opinion, but it might help you understand where other people are coming from - by the time you get to the part where you're flying around the aystem you've already explored it. Finding out everything about the system from the drop-in point doesn't feel [subjective opinion] like exploring. It feels like surveying.

To me, at least, and solution which separates body identification (at range) with body evaluation (by proximity) - even (whisper it) inside the FSS! - would be an improvement on the new system.

Strangely enough... "Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, led an expedition to survey the land West of the Mississippi, known as Louisiana Territory, that had been purchased from France in 1803." - Historical Fact https://www.biography.com/people/groups/lewis-and-clark

 

[Riverside]

Exactly, to my way of thinking it is when my country went from analogue TV to digital TV, suddenly all the old TV's wouldn't work without a converter.

So just think of the new tools as digital, our ships have had the necessary upgrades to be able to use them, but the old analogue ADS just won't work with the new technology.

And what that video shows is that backwards compatibility has been maintained. There was no need to remove the analogue TV, it was an oversight.

 

[M00ka]

And what that video shows is that backwards compatibility has been maintained. There was no need to remove the analogue TV, it was an oversight.

Nope it was a decision made by the powers to be, in my example the Government, in context of this discussion, Frontier Development. They are the facts, not what you want or desire, no matter how many times you say it.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Strangely enough... "Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, at the request of President Thomas Jefferson, led an expedition to survey the land West of the Mississippi, known as Louisiana Territory, that had been purchased from France in 1803." - Historical Fact https://www.biography.com/people/groups/lewis-and-clark

I bet they actually went to Louisiana, rather than sitting in DC with a telescope

Thank you for the useless factoid, by the way, I strongly believe one can never have too many of those.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

And what that video shows is that backwards compatibility has been maintained. There was no need to remove the analogue TV, it was an oversight.

I still see that video shows you've gotten what you've been asking for already.

And where is the outcry to bring back board flipping? Where is the outcry to bring back blowing up one enemy ship satisfying 20 mission givers at the same time?
Surely these must also be oversights as well.

As for the death of analog TV... well now... here's what you probably don't know:

By reducing the amount of analog broadcast, this enables digital service providers to reclaim the bandwidth previously used by those analog broadcasts, which in turn, have allowed those providers to provide increased speed and performance for broadband internet access.

I am living proof of that. My cable provider provided me with their highest tier of internet service, along with a broad selection of television channels for me to not watch anyways. When the decision was made to switch to an all-digital service, yes, I lost my analog services too, but my top tier internet package went from a 100 x 10 connection to a stellar 500 x 50 connection. Definitely not an oversight, but a thought out and planned, and necessary change.

Did I miss my analog broadcasts? Well, actually, just the slightest bit, as this forced me to install a firmware upgrade for my TV tuner card to be able to process and decode digital broadcast. Oh, and I had to add a Roku that I already wanted to the 65" television in the basement.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I bet they actually went to Louisiana, rather than sitting in DC with a telescope

Thank you for the useless factoid, by the way, I strongly believe one can never have too many of those.

I bet they did too, but I also bet if they had access to modern Earth Observation Satellites, GPS data, aerial surveillance craft and the wide array of modern tools, or had any of these been invented prior to their departure, or even come available during their trek, neither one of them would have said "No, we want to slough through the rain, cold and disease-ridden areas, risk our lives every single day and night, and hope we actually make it to the end of this expedition."

Or maybe the would - though neither took me as particularly dim or stubborn in that respect.

For more useless factoids, tune in next time a dead horse is struck.

 

[Jacques d'Orleans]

For controls, I mapped the FSS tracking to my flight stick. I'm not flying around actively while I'm using it, so it made the most sense to me to just allow it to take over my flight control instead. My flight stick has twist yaw, so that's what I use to tune frequencies. Primary fire takes me out of FSS mode, and my secondary fire sounds my Discovery Scanner.

Zoom controls are on my throttle, so there's little sense of "loss" switching between modes. It's quite fluid and feels natural. It's almost like I put a bit of thought into it, instead of going "I guess I'll map this here.." and living with it.

X52 stick, I guess?
I can't use the twisting function of the Saitek x52, it just gives me to much pain in my hands and wrist. A fellow member of the forum gave me the tip to use a xbox controller and I use it now just for the FSS while for the flying I use the X52 and the Saitek flight rudder pedals.

I still don't like the design, which I find ugly, but at least I can operate the FSS now. I hope they give the design a little more love in the future, as I said, IMHO, it's bloody ugly. Ofc, YMMV.
As an example, they could add a voice segment like "FSS active, secondary power on search systems on." or something in that direction and ofc "FSS deactivated, flight mode restored" when you leave said FSS.
Different colors maybe, like in this document (see page 28).
Right now, IMHO, it's not really immersive, it's really like switching from the game to a shodily made 2d mini game for mobile devices.
And please for the love of >insert deity of your choice< remove the belt clusters from the FSS, nodoby gives a dam about them.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

X52 stick, I guess?
I can't use the twisting function of the Saitek x52, it just gives me to much pain in my hands and wrist. A fellow member of the forum gave me the tip to use a xbox controller and I use it now just for the FSS while for the flying I use the X52 and the Saitek flight rudder pedals.

Logitech 3d Pro Extreme.

I still don't like the design, which I find ugly, but at least I can operate the FSS now. I hope they give the design a little more love in the future, as I said, IMHO, it's bloody ugly. Ofc, YMMV.
As an example, they could add a voice segment like "FSS active, secondary power on search systems on." or something in that direction and ofc "FSS deactivated, flight mode restored" when you leave said FSS.
Different colors maybe, like in this document (see page 28).
Right now, IMHO, it's not really immersive, it's really like switching from the game to a shodily made 2d mini game for mobile devices.
And please for the love of >insert deity of your choice< remove the belt clusters from the FSS, nodoby gives a dam about them.

I don't care for the look or feel of the X52's. Friend of mine is on his 3rd one, as they keep breaking on him. Don't have issues with my hands or wrists, aside from a bit of shaking in my hands, but not enough to make any difference. Thought about pedals, but don't really see a need for them with my setup.

As for Asteroid Belts, keep them, but do something with them so we have a reason to give a damn about them. Please!
They've such potential, still untapped. Sort of a theme for Elite.

 

[Riverside]

Nope

So you are saying complete compatibility has not been maintained in tagged systems? You are incorrect.

You will not be surprised to discover that the potential motives of the game designers has also been raised before and covered.

That part is simpler to explain: no extra sales were generated by their removal, and leaving them in would have cost no new sales. So putting any time into removing them was ultimately fruitless since the complete functionality has been retained in tagged systems. This is what I mean when I say it was a waste of time.

Really what I'd like is for this point to be taken on board & accepted. People make mistakes, governments make mistakes, companies make mistakes. This is just one of those times, and it just needs to be put right. I was disappointed it was not included in the first post-3.3 update.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I bet they did too, but I also bet if they had access to modern Earth Observation Satellites, GPS data, aerial surveillance craft and the wide array of modern tools, or had any of these been invented prior to their departure, or even come available during their trek, neither one of them would have said "No, we want to slough through the rain, cold and disease-ridden areas, risk our lives every single day and night, and hope we actually make it to the end of this expedition."

Or maybe the would - though neither took me as particularly dim or stubborn in that respect.

For more useless factoids, tune in next time a dead horse is struck.

Ahhh, the old 'new technology' canard.
Sorry, in a spaceship game set in the 34th century featuring WW2-style dogfighting and minimal AI, trying to use 'new technology' to justify a feature just isn't going to work.

As a rebuttal:

If they had automated data analysis systems for their satellites, GPS and drones neither of them would have said "No, we want to spend time and energy doing all this repetitive drudge-work by hand".

 

[M00ka]

So you are saying complete compatibility has not been maintained in tagged systems? You are incorrect.

You will not be surprised to discover that the potential motives of the game designers has also been raised before and covered.

That part is simpler to explain: no extra sales were generated by their removal, and leaving them in would have cost no new sales. So putting any time into removing them was ultimately fruitless since the complete functionality has been retained in tagged systems. This is what I mean when I say it was a waste of time.

Really what I'd like is for this point to be taken on board & accepted. People make mistakes, governments make mistakes, companies make mistakes. This is just one of those times, and it just needs to be put right. I was disappointed it was not included in the first post-3.3 update.

I give up, you do know more about FD than FD themselves, they should fire DB and make you the CEO. Seriously, you just can't get it through your bias to the new system that FD made a decision and because of any communication from them stating they made a mistake (which in my opinion they didn't), the current system is here to stay. You can bleat, belittle, talk over, talk down, all you want, nothing is going to change.

Now I will put a question to you: how do you know that no sales were generated, are you the CFO of FD now? Considering 3.3 is part of a free, as in no cost, given gratis to all those who have Horizons, update, cost, increased in sales, decrease in players, increase in players, whatever, has no relevance. Your continued rhetoric shows you fail to comprehend that FD has plans that we are unaware of, and they decided that the ADS has no part in those plans. You can claim that the ADS can be reincorporated easily, you can claim that there was no need to remove the ADS, heck you can claim you own the moon. But none of those claims are real, none of those claims can be verified, none of those claims hold any truth.

There is only one fact - FD deemed the ADS as obsolete. That is it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

[video=youtube;452XjnaHr1A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A[/video]
Think that sums it up nicely.

 

[Jacques d'Orleans]

I don't care for the look or feel of the X52's. Friend of mine is on his 3rd one, as they keep breaking on him.

Yeah, the quality went straight down the toilet the moment Saitek was bought by MadCatz, I use a original Saitek one, it's almost 14 years old and it still works like a charm

As for Asteroid Belts, keep them, but do something with them so we have a reason to give a damn about them. Please!
They've such potential, still untapped. Sort of a theme for Elite.

Yeah, that would be an option too. Make the belt clusters interesting, IMHO, they could be used for a variety of things from mining to hidden top secret recon outposts and so on.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

There is only one fact - FD deemed the ADS as obsolete. That is it, nothing more, nothing less.

Aye, they did.

I'm just asking them to reconsider, and to come up with something that works (reasonably well) for everyone.

 

[M00ka]

Aye, they did.

I'm just asking them to reconsider, and to come up with something that works (reasonably well) for everyone.

Thanks Drew, at least you recognise that simple fact.

The problem with FD doing what you want is which 'something else' will please everyone. You have stated you would be quite content with just black circles populating the system map, others want the entire old system map back, others want the new system wiped out and the old one returned. So which one gets the nod, or do they all get included?

There will be of course a follow on effect. If FD give in to the minority and back flip, I know I will be flooding the forums to bring back bits I miss. Like the old engineering model, I liked the randomness of it, so FD better bring that back for me. Others may want the new DSS to not indicate precisely where the surface POIs are so FD better come up with two variants of surface mapping to keep those happy. Someone will definitely ask for a rollback to a previously modified ship before it was buffed or nerfed, guess we will end up with two versions of the one ship.

It will just be one big can of worms!

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It will just be one big can of worms!

An ∞ can of worms.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

Thanks Drew, at least you recognise that simple fact.

The problem with FD doing what you want is which 'something else' will please everyone. You have stated you would be quite content with just black circles populating the system map, others want the entire old system map back, others want the new system wiped out and the old one returned. So which one gets the nod, or do they all get included?

There will be of course a follow on effect. If FD give in to the minority and back flip, I know I will be flooding the forums to bring back bits I miss. Like the old engineering model, I liked the randomness of it, so FD better bring that back for me. Others may want the new DSS to not indicate precisely where the surface POIs are so FD better come up with two variants of surface mapping to keep those happy. Someone will definitely ask for a rollback to a previously modified ship before it was buffed or nerfed, guess we will end up with two versions of the one ship.

It will just be one big can of worms!

I get where you're coming from, but I contend that the forum won't be that much different from its current state of players wanting things changed to suit their particular preferences

As to which particular flavor of compromise FDev select - yeah, that's the tricky part. But that's why they're professional game designers and get paid big bucks.We've given them plenty of good suggestions though.

The thing is, unlike Engineers, we had 4 years of one system that never got changed, not even tweaks, and then they threw the whole thing in the trash and introduced a completely different paradigm. It's not the same as introducing a new feature and then modifying it over a few years.

FDev really should have done a Focused Feedback for exploration prior to implementing the FSS, rather than just coding it and announcing what we were going to get - it would have been a far better use of everyone's time than the OOPPocalypse they unleashed - but evidently they ran into scheduling issues with the Q4 release.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

FDev really should have done a Focused Feedback for exploration prior to implementing the FSS, rather than just coding it and announcing what we were going to get - it would have been a far better use of everyone's time than the OOPPocalypse they unleashed - but evidently they ran into scheduling issues with the Q4 release.

There was a focused feedback on mining. The player feedback was 100% ignored by FD.

So you'd have gained nothing but frustration with an exploration focused feedback.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

IThe thing is, unlike Engineers, we had 4 years of one system that never got changed, not even tweaks, and then they threw the whole thing in the trash and introduced a completely different paradigm. It's not the same as introducing a new feature and then modifying it over a few years.

Pretty sure I posted this since around the time of 2.2:

Yes, absolutely, it was a VERY long time coming. Why? They'll never tell us that. But it did finally come. Those, like me, who absolutely despised the systems that were, waited quite a long time, but endured what was, until what is arrived. Is it really so unreasonable to ask those who loved what was to give things a go the way they are for a while? That whole "walk a mile in someone's shoes" business. We walked plenty of miles in yours already. 6.02*10^23 of them.

FDev really should have done a Focused Feedback for exploration prior to implementing the FSS, rather than just coding it and announcing what we were going to get - it would have been a far better use of everyone's time than the OOPPocalypse they unleashed - but evidently they ran into scheduling issues with the Q4 release.

I won't disagree - a dedicated Focused Feedback would have given us the chance to generate this 160+ page thread a while ago, and possibly even gotten an Official "No, we're changing it the way we want" reply back then. BUT there was still a Focused Feedback with a huge, wide open area to offer up any feedback on any feature, at any time, and quite a few exploration feedbacks were given. They still made a decision and stuck with it, though there were some changes made based on that feedback - such a body counts, migraine-inducing flickering, and a good few other issues as well. Wouldacouldashoulda but didn't.

And no, they did not "throw the whole thing in the trash", they just changed it. They changed it a lot, but it's still there. I still bind my Discovery Scanner, now no longer Advanced, to my second trigger button. Still hold it to honk when I drop into a system - nothing's changed there at all.

I just get my data a different way now, and I happen to like how that is. I still get that you might not, but here are my shoes, start walking.