Unreal Engine 5 has been updated to use DX 12, so still beating Cobra stuck on DX 11
I remember that, I think he was being... optimistic.
QFT (tho' I do wonder what the art reasons are).
This is true, so maybe add it in as an option for more powerful PCs.
Wow, just wow!
Mars would like a word with you -Made it less ridiculous?
Actually there's quite a big difference between rivers and rocky ridges. Rivers have to flow downhill, and not cross each other's courses for starters. Hollows either shouldn't exist or will have lakes in them (in most cases, there are exceptions). None of this is anything to do with how you render it. Ideally large rivers won't drop in altitude very rapidly (again, there are very notable exceptions). And for ED it has to be possible to generate it on the fly rather than precalculated; I'm not sure that the ones I've seen do that; you need something that can produce ever-better resolution as you get closer as you need it (a la how Perlin noise does for random mountains).
That's just the thing though. The impressive views in Horizons presented themselves by chance.Yeah. You either turned away from the star to avoid the dramatic lighting or landed in the shadow.
You also picked landing sites that were deserts. It's pretty important now where you land on a planet and how it looks like will differ a lot depending on where you set down. You know, like in reality.
Funny enough, it looks pretty good for shadowed ice desert shots.
So sure, I can make boring shots on every single planet in Horizons and Odyssey. That's totally possible.
I posted these before, but here I go again. this is the WORST I was able to get in Odyssey on a random rocky planet. Worst, flattest location in direct sunlight. No shadows no nothing:
View attachment 235485
Then I turned about 90° and there was a crack in the ground:
View attachment 235486
Then I flew to a volcanic region, still in total sunlight, and tried to line up a good shot. Still the same planet:
View attachment 235487
And then I turned around to capture the parent planet on this planet:
View attachment 235488
That's one really boring rock that happen to has volcanism and a lovely parent planet in direct sunlight from worst to best, while still not relying on shadows.
I am sure it's not too hard to find a planet that's still more boring to either make a point about Odyssey, but that would be nonsense, right?
EDIT:
Technically that's not even a planet, but a moon.
What's the problem with any of that? Give me the realism any day over impressive anywhere - then impressive anywhere just becomes mundane and dull. The problems aren't that lots are fairly flat, it's the copy-paste features and the lack of even occasionaly really impressive landscapes (no Himalayan mountain ranges or cracks formed as a planet cools of is tidally stressed giving good racing territory). That shouldn't be the norm wherever you drop down - it just gets silly then. But we map planets, so the map is how we should find those features (once they actually exist to be found). Mapping needs to produce maps!
No it's not.
I didn't go anywhere near it. That pic was taken from the system map.
Pretty much what I am seeing everywhere I go.
I'm not really an effort type of guy.
Wow. That's a really bad case.Pretty obvious tiling here, looks crap
Uhm. Present itself. Hm.
I'm not really an effort type of guy.
Odyssey apparently uses a library of handcrafted terrain height map fragments on top of noise-generated terrain. Horizons did this to some extent, too, but the percentage of noise vs. handcrafted has shifted considerably towards handcrafted, which is why it is now easier to spot repetitions (and it may be the reason why EDO occupies twice the install size of EDH). Not sure why you think this is lol-worthy.
Because he also thinks it is mind blowing that data belonging in a database is stored in a database, and not your client
It might just be the case that it shows more in Odyssey because there is a lot more in general.
Procedureally generated can produces some complete nonsense if you're not careful, and even when it doesn't it ends up pretty much like a plate of spaghetti in almost every case - every one is different but they all look the same anyway. So I can see why they hand-did settlements (and it's probably not that implausible that everything will get standardised to that uninspiring degree, although a few different manufacturers of prefabs having slightly different looks would be good).
In Odyssey they added a simple shader effect to the sky to simulate light scattering in a tenuous atmosphere. There is zero interaction with the surface, which is why you're getting these weird planets where the sky is a saturated red but the ground is perfectly grey with pitch black shadows and no ambient lighting. Compare this to an incoming radiation storm in Fallout 4 with its volumetric light effects etc. Hello to 00s? Maybe you're confusing things with Fallout 3.
This is due to the engine having recieved substantial changes for Skyrim. And then they worked for about a year with an in house skyrim version to make those new lighting effect, and make it 64bits capable.
So you think Cobra is a modern engine and Gamebryo is dated?
