General Odyssey - Improve the heatmap - please !

TonyFlury

T
@sallymorganmoore @Arthur Tolmie, @Bruce G,@Zac Cocken
Forgive me for direct messaging you - but I wondering whether you are getting any feedback on this.

Firstly I love the idea of the Detailed Surface Scan heatmap introduced in Odyssey - it is far more 'realistic' than being able to discover distinct biological or geological sites from orbit.
The major problem with the heat map is the accuracy - I am here on 'Col 285 Sector GO-E b13-1 A 5 a' for example and the heatmap shows the entire planet shades of blue for both geysers and fumaroles apart from a few peaks which aren't coloured at all.

The problem iis that I have flown and driven over large parts of this planet, targetting light blue, white and dark blue areas without a single geyser or fumarole to be seen.

So can I humbly suggest a few improvements :
  • Reintroduce the heatmap colour scheme that was originally shipped in Osyssey alpha - the colour range was much more distinct (blue on blue on blue is a bit naff).
  • Make the heatmap more accurate, maybe that accuracy could be based on the DSS scanner upgrade - an fully engineer DSS scanner gets a better scan coverage per probe and a more accurate heatmap.
  • Give some guidance in the codex or somewhere what the colours mean.
Please - finding surface materials is so much more of a pain in Odssey - I understand that the realism makes it more challenging, but we need a bone too.
 
Last edited:

Bruce G

B
Hey Tony, thanks for this feedback!

Sorry to hear you're having issues finding biological/geological sites using the DSS. I would suggest that if you're scouring whole highlighted areas and not finding anything that it's not really intended. Have you opened an issue on the tracker for dev/QA to take a look at?
 

varonica

varonica
I haven't never found anything in a blue area, the problem of course is it's not a heat map, it's a location map, the light and dark blue are just shading from the underlying surface features. It used to be a heat map in the early Alpha's but they changed it from a heat map to a location map, but of course this means you are just as likely to end up in an area with few features as you are to end up in an area with a lot of features. The stated reason for changing it from a proper heat map to a location map is that some players found the heat map confusing.

But as I said, I have never not found anything at all in the blue areas, sometimes they are scattered widely and you need to get down with the SRV and wave scanner to locate them. I actually tested this and landed in some not blue areas just to check my experience, and as expected I could find nothing. I also landed once in a crater and drove a long way across the bottom in a blue area and found very little until I changed my location from a sandy area to a rocky area, sometimes just changing the ground surface type makes a big difference.

Now the other thing I have to ask is, you sure you have that system and planet right? EDSM indicates no vulcanism on that body at all! You sure you didn't land on the wrong one? That would explain the problem!

www.edsm.net

EDSM - Elite Dangerous Star Map

The Galactic Positioning System of Elite: Dangerous at your service.
www.edsm.net www.edsm.net

I am all for implementing a proper heat map as it was in the early Alpha's, if people find it confusing then they just need to learn how to use it, but at the moment it isn't a heat map at all!
 

TonyFlury

T
varonica said:
I haven't never found anything in a blue area, the problem of course is it's not a heat map, it's a location map, the light and dark blue are just shading from the underlying surface features. It used to be a heat map in the early Alpha's but they changed it from a heat map to a location map, but of course this means you are just as likely to end up in an area with few features as you are to end up in an area with a lot of features. The stated reason for changing it from a proper heat map to a location map is that some players found the heat map confusing.

But as I said, I have never not found anything at all in the blue areas, sometimes they are scattered widely and you need to get down with the SRV and wave scanner to locate them. I actually tested this and landed in some not blue areas just to check my experience, and as expected I could find nothing. I also landed once in a crater and drove a long way across the bottom in a blue area and found very little until I changed my location from a sandy area to a rocky area, sometimes just changing the ground surface type makes a big difference.

Now the other thing I have to ask is, you sure you have that system and planet right? EDSM indicates no vulcanism on that body at all! You sure you didn't land on the wrong one? That would explain the problem!

www.edsm.net

EDSM - Elite Dangerous Star Map

The Galactic Positioning System of Elite: Dangerous at your service.
www.edsm.net www.edsm.net

I am all for implementing a proper heat map as it was in the early Alpha's, if people find it confusing then they just need to learn how to use it, but at the moment it isn't a heat map at all!
Click to expand...
Definitely at the right place - both the Heatmap and EDMC Cannon plugin report the existance of Geysers and Fumaroles, as does ED Discovery.

The link you sent was for 'Col 285 Sector GO-E b13-1 A 5' - I am looking on 'Col 285 Sector GO-E b13-1 A 5 a'
 

TonyFlury

T
Bruce G said:
Hey Tony, thanks for this feedback!

Sorry to hear you're having issues finding biological/geological sites using the DSS. I would suggest that if you're scouring whole highlighted areas and not finding anything that it's not really intended. Have you opened an issue on the tracker for dev/QA to take a look at?
Click to expand...
Bruce - I haven't filed an Issue on the Tracker - to be honest my dealings with the issue tracker are less than positive :-(

Attached is a typical 'heatmap' - the amount of useful information is close to zero.
Screenshot_0258-scaled.png
 
Last edited:

finnos

F
I am of much the same opinion. The heatmaps are not very useful at the moment. Its difficult to differentiate the shades of blue.
 

Howard o Pato

Howard o Pato
I would prefer it to have multiple spectra for each type of search and that I could switch between search filters. A heat filter for geysers, another for the sulphurous gases from the fumarole, and another, the current blue, for biological sites with stronger tones for more robust agglomerates
 

TonyFlury

T
Bruce G said:
I would encourage you to do so! If you end up reporting this (with as many details as possible) and reply with a link, I can make sure it gets looked at.
Click to expand...
Bruce, Thanks for your reply - this has already been reported - see https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/33980 - The fact that the report was made at the end of May and it hasn't been addressed or even commented on is worrying considering how important surface exploration for materials is important to the game.
I understand FDEV have had 1000s of tickets to deal with, but it does suggest that the ticket system needs a better way to asses and triage bug reports - maybe a group of select users could be drafted in to help with this - to highlight those issues that will be of concern to the community at large. AT the Moment the only way to highlight an issue seems to be to pester the CM team ;-)
 

Maolagin

M
TonyFlury said:
Bruce, Thanks for your reply - this has already been reported - see https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/33980 - The fact that the report was made at the end of May and it hasn't been addressed or even commented on is worrying considering how important surface exploration for materials is important to the game.
I understand FDEV have had 1000s of tickets to deal with, but it does suggest that the ticket system needs a better way to asses and triage bug reports - maybe a group of select users could be drafted in to help with this - to highlight those issues that will be of concern to the community at large. AT the Moment the only way to highlight an issue seems to be to pester the CM team ;-)
Click to expand...
Well the first thing I notice is that the linked report hasn't made it to the "Confirmed" stage yet. As far as I know, most issues don't get looked unless they either get the 10-ish confirmation posts from other players, or you manage to flag down a CM to specifically take a look. The "select group of users" you seek is "people who bother to post 'can reproduce' reports on open issues".
 

Afterglow [SecB]

Afterglow [SecB]
almost never useful. Most of the time, the life forms you are looking for and volcanism cannot be found at the "hotspots". I can just as easily land somewhere. the success is the same.
 

Imo

Imo
TonyFlury said:
@sallymorganmoore @Arthur Tolmie, @Bruce G,@Zac Cocken
Forgive me for direct messaging you - but I wondering whether you are getting any feedback on this.

Firstly I love the idea of the Detailed Surface Scan heatmap introduced in Odyssey - it is far more 'realistic' than being able to discover distinct biological or geological sites from orbit.
The major problem with the heat map is the accuracy - I am here on 'Col 285 Sector GO-E b13-1 A 5 a' for example and the heatmap shows the entire planet shades of blue for both geysers and fumaroles apart from a few peaks which aren't coloured at all.

The problem iis that I have flown and driven over large parts of this planet, targetting light blue, white and dark blue areas without a single geyser or fumarole to be seen.

So can I humbly suggest a few improvements :
  • Reintroduce the heatmap colour scheme that was originally shipped in Osyssey alpha - the colour range was much more distinct (blue on blue on blue is a bit naff).
  • Make the heatmap more accurate, maybe that accuracy could be based on the DSS scanner upgrade - an fully engineer DSS scanner gets a better scan coverage per probe and a more accurate heatmap.
  • Give some guidance in the codex or somewhere what the colours mean.
Please - finding surface materials is so much more of a pain in Odssey - I understand that the realism makes it more challenging, but we need a bone too.
Click to expand...
the word you are looking for is "heightmap" :)
 

varonica

varonica
jojon said:
I don't think so, because it changes between filters (...with overlapping coverage), which it shouldn't, were that the case.
Click to expand...

It's not an "I don't think so" situation! FDEV have stated directly that it's no longer a heatmap but a location map and that it was changed to avoid confusion among players, so no, whatever anyone thinks is irrelevant, this is what FDEV stated is the situation with the location map!
 

jojon

J
varonica said:
It's not an "I don't think so" situation! FDEV have stated directly that it's no longer a heatmap but a location map and that it was changed to avoid confusion among players, so no, whatever anyone thinks is irrelevant, this is what FDEV stated is the situation with the location map!
Click to expand...
I see nowhere in your paraphrasing anything to state that the shading would reflect the underlying surface features. The shading is different for different filters.

My running hypothesis is that less saturated blue is areas that are on average too low in elevation (...or unsuitable soil/moisture/whatever-else) for the feature, same as no blue at all is areas too high. This does not contradict what you wrote in any way what so ever.
 

Teh Smoo

T
Also, some things like bacteria need to a minimum amount of flattish area to spawn.

And some terrain generation just refuses to DO that.

Finding bacteria that's nearly the same color as the planet is futile. In the air, it's HORRIBLE to find it, and on the ground, you can't SEE anything. I only have a EIGHTY TON SENSOR SYSTEM, you'd think they could add an attachment that fits on a hand-held unit SOMEWHERE in there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom