This is a recent surface screenshot in SC. I really like all the different rock shapes, sizes and that these are 3D objects rather than flat textures. It's optimally appreciated by walking around in first person.
Elite Dangerous' surface graphics must look at least this good for ED to remain competitive.
This is a recent surface screenshot in SC. I really like all the different rock shapes, sizes and that these are 3D objects rather than flat textures. It's optimally appreciated by walking around in first person.
Elite Dangerous' surface graphics must look at least this good for ED to remain competitive.
This is a recent surface screenshot in SC. I really like all the different rock shapes, sizes and that these are 3D objects rather than flat textures. It's optimally appreciated by walking around in first person.
Elite Dangerous' surface graphics must look at least this good for ED to remain competitive.
you touched on 1 thing already tho... ED has to do it in such a way that performance is kept up in VR. there is no way SC is going to run in VR any time soon, probably never (as much as it kills me saying it).
i would take dropping a bit of eye candy over dropping VR every single time, and then some more.
whether something looks good or not is a highly subjective thing..... i think something rendered in full VR but at a reduced detail looks WAY more impressive, and is way more immersive than any pancake shot.
edit.. sorry it was not you who mentioned VR. my point stands however
My only real gripe about surface textures right now is that the game doesn't have an anisotropic filtering setting. So you have to use your graphics drivers to force anisotropic filtering. After doing that, you realize why there's no in-game option for it -- because it screws up the space dust particle effects.
And then I pull my hair out because I have to choose between blurry moon dirt & ship decals or have my space dust look like that star field PC screensaver that came with Windows 3.1. And I don't like either option.
I see we're drifting into Star Citizen now... well might as well:
(These are taken with the highest graphics settings available, for those that wonder... let's not talk about fps...)
If you take a look at this first one taken on an icy moon with a very thin atmosphere (I'd say these are nearly the same as the ones we have in Elite). It doesn't appear (appart from lighting) that different from what is planned for Q4 (new scatter rock tech). However there is a major difference, that is the surface textures, which have actual depth (I suppose through tesselation):
If you look at this second one, while textures have a higher resolution (Again, that's probably because you are supposed to view them from up close. In Elite there is currently no reason to have these and I would assume FD have higher resolution versions available, but decided not to use them.), the main difference is that surfaces appear to have more detail and are not just flat with an added effect to trick us into believing there is hight to them. Let's compare that to the concept art for Q4:
While being concept art I'd say if planets in Q4 will look like that, they are at least on par with what Star Citizen currently has. We also have to keep in mind that planets in Star Citizen are incredibly small compared to ones in Elite (even being scaled down when they are only small moons).
And if you made it until here a bonus image:
CMDR Marine in front of his SRV Rover in front of his Python Retaliator in front of things.
If you take a look at this first one taken on an icy moon with a very thin atmosphere (I'd say these are nearly the same as the ones we have in Elite). It doesn't appear (appart from lighting) that different from what is planned for Q4 (new scatter rock tech). However there is a major difference, that is the surface textures, which have actual depth (I suppose through tesselation):
While being concept art I'd if planets in Q4 will look like that, they are at least on par with what Star Citizen currently has. We also have to keep in mind that planets in Star Citizen are incredibly small compared to ones in Elite (even being scaled down when they are only small moons).
I'm not saying they would change their planetary tech and lighting system in Q4 to allow for an expansion featuring atmospheric worlds with lots of vegetation on them, but I think they are changing their planetary tech and lighting system in Q4 to allow for an expansion featuring atmospheric worlds with vegetation on them.
I'm not saying they would change their planetary tech and lighting system in Q4 to allow for an expansion featuring atmospheric worlds with lots of vegetation on them, but I think they are changing their planetary tech and lighting system in Q4 to allow for an expansion featuring atmospheric worlds with vegetation on them.
Maybe so, but it does look a lot better than anything I've seen in ED. There's a disappointing uniformity of terrain in ED - rocks come in the same sort of sizes (small, medium and the odd large one - nothing much bigger than an SRV) and they all sit on the surface. Describing it as driving over a blanket sounds about right to me.
So thumbs up for any improvements to terrain that might be coming in future. In the meantime, if anyone's got any advice on how to improve what I'm currently seeing I'd be grateful. Terrain settings are all set to Ultra (High for texture detail). This is what I see :
Do they? I'd much rather they focussed on giving us more to do on planets first.
Of course visuals are important and can add to the immersion and I will open-heartedly welcome any visual improvements to ED. But I felt perfectly immersed in the previous Elite games despite being fully aware of their graphical limitations. Currently, I play a lot of indie games that use pixel art or other highly-stylised visuals, and I can feel fully immersed in them. Immersion is about far more than striving for photorealism. And photorealism doesn't automatically make a game better or good. At the end of the day, if it's a choice between two similar games and one has better graphics and the other has better gameplay, I'm going to choose the latter every time.
It's funny as well, because if play online shooters, everyone has the graphics turned as low as possible because it gives you a very real advantage (or at least puts you at a disadvantage if you don't) - less visual distractions, easier to other players.
Do they? I'd much rather they focussed on giving us more to do on planets first.
Of course visuals are important and can add to the immersion and I will open-heartedly welcome any visual improvements to ED. But I felt perfectly immersed in the previous Elite games despite being fully aware of their graphical limitations. Currently, I play a lot of indie games that use pixel art or other highly-stylised visuals, and I can feel fully immersed in them. Immersion is about far more than striving for photorealism. And photorealism doesn't automatically make a game better or good. At the end of the day, if it's a choice between two similar games and one has better graphics and the other has better gameplay, I'm going to choose the latter every time.
It's funny as well, because if play online shooters, everyone has the graphics turned as low as possible because it gives you a very real advantage (or at least puts you at a disadvantage if you don't) - less visual distractions, easier to other players.
I play a lot of online shooters and it's not necessary to turn everything down as long as you can see your opponent clearly. Brightskins, forced enemy models and the like make most of the difference for me. I am surprised at the fps I get in ED though - around 30 for that shot in my previous post. What's it doing??? I can get 120+ in most FPS and there's a lot more going on in those...
Personally, photorealism is one of the things that matters to me in ED, but your mileage may vary.
I play a lot of online shooters and it's not necessary to turn everything down as long as you can see your opponent clearly. Brightskins, forced enemy models and the like make most of the difference for me. I am surprised at the fps I get in ED though - around 30 for that shot in my previous post. What's it doing??? I can get 120+ in most FPS and there's a lot more going on in those...
Personally, photorealism is one of the things that matters to me in ED, but your mileage may vary.
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
