Planet ground textures look like asp
- Thread starter amadeus1171
- Start date
The PS4 and Xbox are perfectly capable of doing high end tessellation, and for the PC it can be easily made a toggle in setup to give low end machines the option to turn it off. The consoles aren't the reason planet textures don't use tessellation. I'd wager that Frontier have messed around with it already and that the reason we don't have it yet is more due to performance issues with the Cobra engine than any hardware limitations. It probably just kills the framerates too much to have it enabled. They have been optimizing the game with each update though, so maybe they'll garner enough cycles to implement it someday soon. Or, maybe they just haven't bothered to try implementing it yet, that could also be the situation.
Even though I love the new 3.0 planets, I do agree that tessellation would be a welcome feature. The bump mapping they currently do on the planet textures does look pretty good, but tessellation would do a lot to make them look even better.
Even though I love the new 3.0 planets, I do agree that tessellation would be a welcome feature. The bump mapping they currently do on the planet textures does look pretty good, but tessellation would do a lot to make them look even better.
Last edited:
I reject the OP's false premise that a lack of high end tessellation or any tessellation equals looking like 'asp.'
I haven't reached 'Elite' in the propper areas that would enable me to have the viewpoint that anything less than high end maxium = crap.
I haven't reached 'Elite' in the propper areas that would enable me to have the viewpoint that anything less than high end maxium = crap.
Oh, it does look like ASP! And FD knows it! They need to collectively figure out how to make tessellation work with the cobra engine.
In VR it looks especially bad.
Here's another twitch stream that shows how horrible the ground looks.
[video]https://www.twitch.tv/videos/237433569##[/video]
Yeah, hi. I play the game most every day, and the ground doesn't look like .
Also, that 'other' link shows you pew-pewing for a couple of hours. Didn't see the ground.
The graphics card is already busy building the planet though
Reminds me of this thread, from already more than two years ago:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/210283-Why-no-POM-for-planetary-surfaces
I must say that, as an explorer and someone who just enjoys wandering on alien worlds, terrain improvement has been my most anticipated feature since the launch of Horizons.
Improved terrain roughness (be it through tessellation, pom, or anything else) along side sharper terrain edges (we don't have any proper sharp edge on any planetary geometry!! I'm talking small scale, not large structures like canyons seen from far away) would clearly be, to me and many others, a game changer. I actually would buy a new graphics card may mine not be sufficient enough for such new features.
And please, provide us any of those facts "proving" the human eye cannot see a difference between 60 and 144hz. Any scientific study showing it? While agree that regularity between fame is a (if not the most) important aspect, even a quick google search will demonstrate you with simple experiments that anyone who's not blind can appreciate the difference between 144hz and 60hz. Please go an try one of those screens by yourself (you won't even need to play a game, just drag a window across the desktop...).
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/210283-Why-no-POM-for-planetary-surfaces
I must say that, as an explorer and someone who just enjoys wandering on alien worlds, terrain improvement has been my most anticipated feature since the launch of Horizons.
Improved terrain roughness (be it through tessellation, pom, or anything else) along side sharper terrain edges (we don't have any proper sharp edge on any planetary geometry!! I'm talking small scale, not large structures like canyons seen from far away) would clearly be, to me and many others, a game changer. I actually would buy a new graphics card may mine not be sufficient enough for such new features.
And please, provide us any of those facts "proving" the human eye cannot see a difference between 60 and 144hz. Any scientific study showing it? While agree that regularity between fame is a (if not the most) important aspect, even a quick google search will demonstrate you with simple experiments that anyone who's not blind can appreciate the difference between 144hz and 60hz. Please go an try one of those screens by yourself (you won't even need to play a game, just drag a window across the desktop...).
I had ED running on my old laptop, when it first came out and that was on a i3 with intel onboard graphics and it worked fine lol. Anything less than that woudl literally have been a potato plugged into a walk socket. I don't think PC limitations are that big of an issue now.
Last edited:
That made me feel sick lol
My ancient, overheaty laptop can just run 3.0 at lowest settings, native resolution 1600x900. In supercruise it's about 50fps, that drops to anywhere between 10-30fps in stations, combat zones and planet surfaces.
It's an older generation i7 and 630m.
Tessellation would also help with the effect of getting closer to something. Sure, the textures increase in fidelity the closer you get, but they're still textures. The actual detail remains stagnant.
At height the textures should appear almost flat. As you get closer to the ground you should see more depth being displayed in the textures. And when you get your nose right up to the texture, you should see individual grains of sand. Maybe grains of sand is a bit much, but you get what I mean. Textures depth detail should increase the closer you get to a surface.
This is noticeable with big ships. I could never tell how close my nose is to the surface because there is no detailed texture depth detail. And if you get in an SLF and put your nose right to the ground, the lack of tessellation become egregiously obvious.
At height the textures should appear almost flat. As you get closer to the ground you should see more depth being displayed in the textures. And when you get your nose right up to the texture, you should see individual grains of sand. Maybe grains of sand is a bit much, but you get what I mean. Textures depth detail should increase the closer you get to a surface.
This is noticeable with big ships. I could never tell how close my nose is to the surface because there is no detailed texture depth detail. And if you get in an SLF and put your nose right to the ground, the lack of tessellation become egregiously obvious.
I am pretty sure they already have all the neat stuff going on at their office. They are releasing better planet surface during q4 so at this point they must have some serious testing going on.
If only we can get some feedback from a dev whether or no they're using tessellation and if not, that they plan to.
Planet surfaces are looking pretty good already in detail. If they get better, well <insert mind blown meme here> .....
Tesselation is elating.You just like using that word
*** TESSELLATION ***
They are flat textures that fool the uninitiated in 2D, but in VR it is very obvious. As good as you think it looks now tesselation would make it look even better.
I suspect they aren't using many of the tools that nVidia and AMD provides. Shame; this game can look so much more beautiful! And I suspect, if they utilize the tools that contemporary GPU's provide, we would be able to land on atmospheric planets and see realistic plants and animal life.
Really, what is the hold up with that?
Really, what is the hold up with that?
I'd say the reason is primarily marketing, because the market can't cope with the gaming community saying "the tech is good enough as it is now, leave it at that".
However, without doubting any claims, I'd be much interested in a study over perceived difference between different refresh rates.
No need to go full biology/neurology/whatnot and try to compare our "brain pictures" with frames.
Just take a few hundreds test subjects, trained and untrained in the graphics department, and leave them with different refresh rates/monitors, same quality.
Ask to describe what they saw. Compile results. Could be interesting. Maybe already done ? dunno. Link appreciated.
No offence, but a man's word is a single man's word until proven otherwise.
Last edited: