Planetary Tech with Dr Kay Ross: Recap

Oooh.

Odyssey has a different engine in it, which also has an impact on the visuals in the base game. But only if you buy Odyssey.

Interesting.

EDIT:: Presumably this means that Odyssey players cannot instance with Horizons players on the surface of the same planet?
All that that quote tells us is the console and pc platforms are being rolled out at different times. Which works because they are currently separate, on different servers, I believe? PC users are all on the same servers, horizons or base. Presumably EDO horizons and base will all be on the same servers.

What I'm getting at is the only thing that question answers is whether the consoles and pc are separate.
 
the difference between them and Mars is that they only have one gas, and none have hydrogen, which means no auroras.
The hydrogen actually isn't counted as part of the atmosphere, just like free hydrogen doesn't feature in the actual Martian atmosphere lists (95% carbon dioxide, 2,6% nitrogen, 1,9% argon, 0,17% oxygen etc.) as it is present in hydrogen envelope surrounding the planet. Do you actually have a source that states that an atmosphere that has a heavy presence of a single gas couldn't produce auroras? E: Also to add, the thickest atmo shown has a more varied composition.

Then again, as noted, auroras simply don't actually exist in ED. You could spend a year orbiting Earth in ED and never see an aurora. But the actual reason to that is that they haven't been added to the game and I fail to see why we would need a handwavium reason for something that they might add later to the game.
 
Last edited:
I, and I know many with me, still would like a definition of exactly what a "tenuous atmosphere" is. Is it 0.1, 0.01 atmospheres, less, more? There where many who asked that question prior to the stream and I am somewhat surprised that we didn't get that question forwared and answered.
 
I, and I know many with me, still would like a definition of exactly what a "tenuous atmosphere" is. Is it 0.1, 0.01 atmospheres, less, more?
I presume any planet with an atmosphere that's labelled "Thin" in-game, but yeah, it would be nice to get more info regarding what atmospheric pressure, gravity and temperature ranges landable (and walkable) worlds will have.
 
You're missing the point. You are using Mars as an example of a planet with a thin atmosphere where auroras can occur.

I'm saying that while we are getting planets with thin atmospheres, the difference between them and Mars is that they only have one gas, and none have hydrogen, which means no auroras.

I admire the bravery of this post! (y) (y) (y)

I agree it's a development thingy .. really .. and also think you're probably barking up the wrong tree with atmosphere compositions. BUT I think you could say that come Odyssey, tenuous atmospheres will be added to updated surface generation tech but planet cores and magnetic fields are not included yet.

(Although we have a coordinate system in place, I think that's based on rotational axes. You'll notice we don't have any indication or magnetic poles on yet HUD either. Also if you see a bug the planets are hollow .. and the galaxy has been degaussed! Aaaaaaaaargh)
 
BUT I think you could say that come Odyssey, tenuous atmospheres will be added to updated surface generation tech but planet cores and magnetic fields are not included yet.
Seems like another unnecessarily complicated explanation for simply not having auroras because they haven't had the dev time to do auroras and probably don't see them as priority (hard to see planetary cores and magnetic fields featuring very high on that list either).
 
Last edited:
No aurora or multiple light sources.
Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.

I could live without multiple light sources if Frontier did some "magic" to at least simulator this to some extent. Multiple lights are easy peasy if they don't cast shadows, so perhaps Frontier could make the closest star the "shadow caster" but make the other stars non-shadow casting light sources (forgive my lack of scientific terms). Here's an example showing a point light source that casts shadows as the primary light (it's a spotlight, so it has a very narrow cone compared to a spherical light source), with two additional non-shadow-casting lights added to the mix. It's not as nice as if all three light sources casted shadows, but it's better than nothing IMO.
 

Attachments

  • lights-1.jpg
    lights-1.jpg
    137.9 KB · Views: 13
  • lights-2.jpg
    lights-2.jpg
    167.7 KB · Views: 12
  • lights-3.jpg
    lights-3.jpg
    175.6 KB · Views: 11
Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.

Q: Will the changes include a multi-source lighting system to reflect the presence of multiple stars in systems that have them?
As we're aiming for similar specs to base game for Odyssey, we won't be including a multi-source lighting system, for performance and art reasons.
 
Q: Will the changes include a multi-source lighting system to reflect the presence of multiple stars in systems that have them?
As we're aiming for similar specs to base game for Odyssey, we won't be including a multi-source lighting system, for performance and art reasons.
Hmm... Performance I get, but art? I'll have to remember this one. "I'm sorry dad, but I didn't paint the house like you wanted because I just couldn't bring myself to ruin the art of peeling paint."

Well I guess I'll keep my sightseeing to single-star and tight binary star systems. The most immersion breaking aspect of single light sources is when you are on the "night side" of a planet based on a primary star, but there is a secondary star in the sky and it's still pitch black. By the way, does anyone know how Space Engine handles multiple stars and planetshine?

(Now I'm wondering what Elephant Butt Leather looks like when lit by multiple sources... Maybe that's the art she's talking about!)
 
Will users on PC who don't upgrade to Odyssey, see the changes at the same time as those who do?

She also said that existing landscapes are impossible to reproduce with the new version. if the geographical information is indeed different it will be funny to see horizons and odyssey players instancing together on a rocky planet :)

this would indicate that horizons clients will be updated to horizons version at launch, at least for planetary surfaces. if planet's look different from afar that hasn't any actual impact on gameplay, but players deep buried in hills or floating over valleys doesn't make for very good screenshots ...

But if the engine is now going to be split based on who upgrades and who doesn't. Where does that leave us?

the old client would slowly turn into abandonware. not that they actually waste much time maintaining it, not even when it was 'new'. what makes the most sense is that every client is upgraded on release, a quick death, console clients would be the last to vanish. this being frontier, making sense not necessarily makes sense.
 
Seems like another unnecessarily complicated explanation for simply not having auroras because they haven't had the dev time to do auroras and probably don't see them as priority (hard to see planetary cores and magnetic fields featuring very high on that list either).

Oh totally unnecessary and complicated .. fun though.
 
Has no multiple light sources been confirmed? I haven't read the OP in its entirety yet, but according to OA, the verdict is still out on that one.

I could live without multiple light sources if Frontier did some "magic" to at least simulator this to some extent. Multiple lights are easy peasy if they don't cast shadows, so perhaps Frontier could make the closest star the "shadow caster" but make the other stars non-shadow casting light sources (forgive my lack of scientific terms). Here's an example showing a point light source that casts shadows as the primary light (it's a spotlight, so it has a very narrow cone compared to a spherical light source), with two additional non-shadow-casting lights added to the mix. It's not as nice as if all three light sources casted shadows, but it's better than nothing IMO.
If no shadow is cast, why would you want it to work? I mean in what way would it be visible that it was working other than shadow?

This goes to the real question: why do people want it? Beyond accuracy?
 
Hmm... Performance I get, but art? I'll have to remember this one. "I'm sorry dad, but I didn't paint the house like you wanted because I just couldn't bring myself to ruin the art of peeling paint."

Well I guess I'll keep my sightseeing to single-star and tight binary star systems. The most immersion breaking aspect of single light sources is when you are on the "night side" of a planet based on a primary star, but there is a secondary star in the sky and it's still pitch black. By the way, does anyone know how Space Engine handles multiple stars and planetshine?

(Now I'm wondering what Elephant Butt Leather looks like when lit by multiple sources... Maybe that's the art she's talking about!)
So the reason people want it is because they are on a dark side and can see a secondary star? We've come a long way from the days when we complained that the dark side wasn't dark ever :)
 
If no shadow is cast, why would you want it to work? I mean in what way would it be visible that it was working other than shadow?

This goes to the real question: why do people want it? Beyond accuracy?
If you can't see why or what the benefit would be, then I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

So the reason people want it is because they are on a dark side and can see a secondary star? We've come a long way from the days when we complained that the dark side wasn't dark ever :)
So you actually think it's okay to have a planet surface completely black with a freaking SUN in the midday sky? Wow... I don't even like it pitch black when there is a full moon in the sky, let alone a full sun, but at least I can compensate for this somewhat with my mod. AFAIK I won't be able to fix broken suns, however.

But as I said, my personal solution is to just avoid visiting systems with multiple suns spread at great distances throughout the sky. Even if two close binary stars are of the same color, then one light source is fin. It's when you have multiple stars of various colors spread at great distances throughout the sky that the lighting falls apart.
 
As we're aiming for similar specs to base game for Odyssey, we won't be including a multi-source lighting system, for performance and art reasons.
A bit disappointing. Hope this is addressed at some point as I thought this would be part of lighting improvements. I don't understand what you mean by "art reasons" but a planet being lit by two or more differently colored stars is very positive for the artistic look of the game.
 
A bit disappointing. Hope this is addressed at some point as I thought this would be part of lighting improvements. I don't understand what you mean by "art reasons" but a planet being lit by two or more differently colored stars is very positive for the artistic look of the game.
Kinda makes me wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 older gen console performance fiasco had anything to do with this decision.
 
Kinda makes me wonder if Cyberpunk 2077 older gen console performance fiasco had anything to do with this decision.
That's an interesting point. In a vacuum I'd disagree, but after the release being pushed back just for consoles, they do seem to be watching that release and not wanting to repeat it themselves. If anything, I would hope that multiple stellar light sources on a body could be a graphics option for PC, if they're worried about performance. Maybe it could also be part of the "Performance vs Graphics" mode toggles on new consoles.
 
Top Bottom