Return at least the tire marks of the srvs
I don’t think it’s just the resources and costs of solving this particular issue.
It’s also about all the other negative consequences of any such solution.
This is what happens when studios especially small ones develop or try to develop their own engine. It never goes well, you end up spending more time trying to fix bugs, repair suites, overhual entire systems rather then spending time actually building the title on it!
Had you folks choose to do the more sensible thing like base the game on UE you could have benefitted from being able to not only find more develop people with backgrounds in Unreal Engine, you also save your self time and by extension Money not having your own teams working on it, as well as having the ability to later port the game Simply, easily and quickly to Any of the updates UE releases! You could have also done a service charge for the game even 5$ a month should more than cover the cost of license.
Instead you choose to go the more difficult route, why? Some suit thought it would be a better idea?
It's an Acknowledged issue so hopefully it'll get fixed. Anyone with free votes please consider:
It feels a bit like ambulance chasing, but if you don't ask you don't getwell, 700+ people should have at least one vote free
Rightly so, as I have never claimed anyone has said this. Stop with the strawman arguments and please do try and keep up. I'm getting very bored very quickly having to explain stuff I have already said that could just be avoided if you read them yourself.
Yeah, yeah, if they just did <insert trite cliched idea> everything would be glorious sunny uplands, and there would be no downsides ever!!!
He didn't say that somebody had claimed that the problem doesn't exist
Yeah, yeah, if they just did <insert trite cliched idea> everything would be glorious sunny uplands, and there would be no downsides ever!!!
Trite, clichéd. Maybe you should read Webster.com and come back with something witty. Unless you just want to keep attacking a person for their point of view instead of engaging in a conversation.
Fancy people being passionate about convincing random planetary generation in this game of all things.. blatant and frequent copy and pasta worlds-- yes, it's absurd that people would be miffed about that in a game that is hugely grounded in galactic exploration.
I mean heaven forbid they may have a different opinion on the matter to you. Well, I suppose the solution is to dismiss them sarcastically as 'experts'.
As I said a long time ago, one can forgive to some degree a certain amount of copied craters - I mean craters have a tendency to look the same, BIG ROUND HOLES. However, when you see repeated entire terrain regions and ranges that's rather less forgivable, in my and many's view.
Last edited:
Maybe you should have started with a sensible post.
Or if you want a conversation about it; why didn’t you start with a sensible post?
It’s such a ludicrous suggestion, one might almost consider it unreal…..Oh, so you do consider witty the idea of FDev using UE for Elite. Right
(Ahthangyew ahthangyew. I’m here all night.
)Find them yourself, there's a back-page button for a reason. It's not my job to spoon-feed you information that you can find yourself.
The company had a year to resolve performance issues. It did not. The company had a year to update on-foot gameplay and on-foot balance to any reasonable standard. It is still as weak as it was at launch. UI system was a travesty and still remains one - it has become among the least useable in the industry. Antialiasing system is so horrifyingly bad, the game HAS to be run at 4k to even be remotely not an eyesore, and FSR is unable to compensate for the issue. Aesthetic factor of the game was basically destroyed wit complete removal of extreme planetary features and brutal tiled areas on their surface. At the same time, amounts of new content to at least partially overweight the negatives approach zero - no new ships in years, variety in bases and other locations is negligible, interior sets for carriers are, again, negligible and of any value for a limited user group.
By this time, it is hard to even consider the possibility of ED returning to playable state at least for what I consider such: all the new content is unusable due to poor performance and unsatisfying gameplay loop, while old content was damaged by lethal UX quality drop due to "new and improved" UI.
From this point on I have to consider Frontier to be untrustworthy and permanently reject any financial interactions with the company.
By this time, it is hard to even consider the possibility of ED returning to playable state at least for what I consider such: all the new content is unusable due to poor performance and unsatisfying gameplay loop, while old content was damaged by lethal UX quality drop due to "new and improved" UI.
From this point on I have to consider Frontier to be untrustworthy and permanently reject any financial interactions with the company.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
afaik every game FD have ever.made, including the previous 2 elite games (elite was not made by FD it was bedroom made by David braben and Ian bell), use a version of this engine.
Yes, my friend, I know that but...
Last edited:
The context of the point was about world-building. Two methods to achieve the same thing. I mean, you're not denying that you engage in cherry picking.
Horizons was never looked at as the perfect example of planetary generation that it has become in order to bash Odyssey, or are you attempting to add historical revisionism to try to keep your argument from foundering? There are positives and negatives to both Horizons & Odyssey planetary tech, and some of the issues I've seen posted about Odyssey apply to Horizons as in many ways the underlying way the planetary height map is created is the same, just more basic, as is the Horizons tech overall.It seem that Horizon match it pretty well
Though I get it, your position is to be the devil's advocate and never move from that, which is why you and others engage in discussion the way you do. I don't believe your purpose of intent is in arriving at any consensus.
I have to dispute a lot of these things. So using my machine a i7, 16GB ram and 1050 ti.
Performance Issues.
At launch : fps between 10-15 for most activities, unplayable except for plant scanning on Low Settings
Present : fps between 30-45 for most activities, Only noticeable slowdown around planetary ports, walking around the concourse, on Mid settings
Updated Gameplay
At Launch : Bare Bones on foot missions, no emotes, constant errors in team play,
Present: On Foot missions have more variety, including space interaction (which it need more of). Emotes, Walking around mega-ships and fleet carriers, New SRV, Anti Ship turrets in CZs, Improved team play stability (it's now very rare instead of occasional).
UI
At Launch : Galaxy Map - OK, system Map - slow and clunky, Outfitting - what the hell dude!!
Present : Galaxy Map - Faster, System Map - Faster, although there still is an issue with focusing on planets, Outfitting - acceptable. In all cases it is a case of getting used to the new UI. When you get used to it, it's hard to go back to horizons.
Its fair to say at Launch, Odyssey was awful. I know I was lucky because I chose gameplay that wasn't as troublesome as other parts of the game. However, to say it's as bad as it was a launch is basically untrue and unfair to the devs who have made a vast improvements to the game. For Me, Update 8 is where the game started to work properly and, you could argue, that should have been what it should have been at launch.