Rocky Planet Comparison (Horizons vs Odyssey)

jammedhamed

jammedhamed
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 a
Screenshot (253)-min.png
Screenshot (249)-min.png

Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 b
Screenshot (254)-min.png
Screenshot (255)-min.png

Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 c
Screenshot (257)-min.png
Screenshot (256)-min.png



Here are 3 planets I randomly picked orbiting a gas giant some 10K Ly from Beagle Point.
Personally, I am preferring the older Horizons rocky planets, as they seemed more varied and interesting, and you could see the canyons and details in higher visual fidelity. Furthermore, rocky planets in the old tech had more interesting features in general.

What do you all think?
 

Chris Simon

Chris Simon
jammedhamed said:
What do you all think?
Click to expand...
That a sample of three doesn't say anything.

I don't know, maybe the Horizons planets looked better from the distance, but when you actually landed, all the "fidelity" and "interesting features" just melted away into a samey landscape.
I like that the terrain in Odyssey is ACTUALLY varied over the surface and the features are more pronounces and correspond with the picture from orbit. There were only a handful of planets that were truly interesting up close in Horizons. The rest was kind of bland.
In Horizons it took me days of exploring till I found one planet that was worth driving around on. In Odyssey, every planet I visited had something that kept me interested.

Hundred people hundred tastes, I guess. shruggs
 

jammedhamed

jammedhamed
Chris Simon said:
That a sample of three doesn't say anything.
Click to expand...
So it's better than the multitudes of single screenshots we get on the forums?
I tried specifically to get a good sample of 3 different moons so that we could see a more coherent difference in tech.

It's not representing the billions of planets out there, however "doesn't say anything" isn't true at all, either.

I like that the terrain in Odyssey is ACTUALLY varied over the surface and the features are more pronounces and correspond with the picture from orbit.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, even after reading it a few times

Hundred people hundred tastes, I guess. shruggs
Click to expand...
This part is true.
 

Valorin

Valorin
jammedhamed said:
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 aView attachment 231746View attachment 231747
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 b
View attachment 231751View attachment 231753
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 c
View attachment 231755View attachment 231756


Here are 3 planets I randomly picked orbiting a gas giant some 10K Ly from Beagle Point.
Personally, I am preferring the older Horizons rocky planets, as they seemed more varied and interesting, and you could see the canyons and details in higher visual fidelity. Furthermore, rocky planets in the old tech had more interesting features in general.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...
They looked a bit rockier and bumpier in Horizons yeah. No clue if that was realistic, but I also think it looked a bit better.
On-planet though... Nope. Spent hours landing on rocks yesterday. Every single of the new planets has different regions, some boring, some interesting, with volcanic features seen from above, cracks, ravines and so on. I found them a lot more interesting than those from Horizons and I've also seen a lot of those over the years.
Glitches aside, one thing I missed a bit in the Odyssey versions, was dust and haze. Also no clue if that was realistic, but I pretty much liked it.

Edit:
A few of my screens, rocks only, no ice worlds:

A very beautiful atmospheric. Those don't look like this always, but sometimes:
2021-05-25 10_13_44-Greenshot.jpg


Volcanic rock near the star, can't walk here. Too hot:
2021-05-25 11_09_55-Greenshot.jpg


This is where I landed here, volcanic features seen from the ship:
volcanic stuff.jpg


Empty moon of an atmospheric world. This shot is DELIBERATELY SHOT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Worst lighting conditions for any planet ever:
2021-05-25 17_43_15-Greenshot.jpg


2021-05-25 17_42_15-Greenshot.jpg


Another hell planet (and yes, could use a bit more of an orange tint):
2021-05-25 18_29_43-Greenshot.jpg


A charred region on a simple rock:
2021-05-25 22_07_28-Greenshot.jpg


Same planet as above, different region:
2021-05-25 22_17_24-Greenshot.jpg


Again, same planet, from above with both types of regions in sight:
2021-05-25 22_44_13-Greenshot.jpg


And here's the absolute WORST you can do, in both Horizons and Odyssey.
DIRECT LIGHT PLUS NOTHING BUT EMPTY SPACE:
2021-05-25 17_31_02-Greenshot.jpg
 
Last edited:

Lone_star

Lone_star
#1 - Horizons definitely looks way better
#2 - Horizons wins again I think, but pretty close
#3 - I might actually like Odyssey more for that one (but again, reasonably close)
 

Mengy

Mengy
I prefer the Horizons planets simply because their surface features look more interesting to explore on the ground. Why are there no canyons in EDO? All of the EDO planets have great coloring but there surface features look smoothed over and bland by comparison.

It's like the EDO planets were designed to look great from space but with no care for the surface geometry at all.
 

varonica

varonica
Actually from the distance of those pictures you wouldn't see the Grand Canyon at all, and that's the biggest one on earth, that's why the EDO planets look bland, the canyons we see on the Horizons planets are actually much larger than anything on the earth. The reason you can't see huge canyons is because the surface features actually properly scaled in EDO.

Here's Pluto, that compares favourably with the EDO images;

ksBCRIH.jpg
 

jammedhamed

jammedhamed
Valorin said:
They looked a bit rockier and bumpier in Horizons yeah. No clue if that was realistic, but I also think it looked a bit better.
On-planet though... Nope. Spent hours landing on rocks yesterday. Every single of the new planets has different regions, some boring, some interesting, with volcanic features seen from above, cracks, ravines and so on. I found them a lot more interesting than those from Horizons and I've also seen a lot of those over the years.
Glitches aside, one thing I missed a bit in the Odyssey versions, was dust and haze. Also no clue if that was realistic, but I pretty much liked it.

Edit:
A few of my screens, rocks only, no ice worlds:

A very beautiful atmospheric. Those don't look like this always, but sometimes:
View attachment 231768

Volcanic rock near the star, can't walk here. Too hot:View attachment 231769

This is where I landed here, volcanic features seen from the ship:
View attachment 231770

Empty moon of an atmospheric world. This shot is DELIBERATELY SHOT IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. Worst lighting conditions for any planet ever:
View attachment 231771
Click to expand...

Well in my shots, I was taking a picture from very far away. I know many planets in Odyssey have pretty sunset effects and great millimeter textures. However you cannot simply just post a slew of unrelated pictures and then make an argument against my pictures, because clearly I wasn't looking for that style when comparing the planets from orbit.

I'll say it again but sunset effects =/= good surfaces, and close ups =/= good surfaces either. If you could post pictures from far away on those same planet's i'd appreciate it.
 

jammedhamed

jammedhamed
varonica said:
Actually from the distance of those pictures you wouldn't see the Grand Canyon at all, and that's the biggest one on earth, that's why the EDO planets look bland, the canyons we see on the Horizons planets are actually much larger than anything on the earth. The reason you can't see huge canyons is because the surface features actually properly scaled in EDO.

Here's Pluto, that compares favourably with the EDO images;

ksBCRIH.jpg
Click to expand...
Pluto is more of an ice world. However even then, to me, the randomness Pluto has in color looks miles more interesting as opposed to the Odyssey shots.
 

Brennz

Brennz
First planet I think looks better in Horizon. The other two, Odyssey for sure. The quality is just better. I get that the Horizons ones have more going on, but IMO the texture improvements, the variances in color, etc. are just as visually appealing, and moreso because they look more realistic. More isn't always better. Especially the last one. Odyssey looks leaps and bounds better than the Horizons shot.
 

Valorin

Valorin
jammedhamed said:
Well in my shots, I was taking a picture from very far away. I know many planets in Odyssey have pretty sunset effects and great millimeter textures. However you cannot simply just post a slew of unrelated pictures and then make an argument against my pictures, because clearly I wasn't looking for that style when comparing the planets from orbit.

I'll say it again but sunset effects =/= good surfaces, and close ups =/= good surfaces either. If you could post pictures from far away on those same planet's i'd appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Title said rocky planet comparison. Not that it's about planets from space.
I even said that I agree on most of those. So my pictures weren't an argument against your post. I mean... yours are planets from space. Mine are planets on-surface.
Hard to compare those.

EDIT:
But here's a direct comparison of Ao A1. In this case Odyssey absolutely wins in my opinion:

Horizons:
2021-05-05 21_56_12-Greenshot.jpg


Odyssey:
2021-05-25 18_25_04-Greenshot.jpg


I didn't make these shots for this thread but had them lying around because my fleet carrier is parked there and I was curious about the difference it would make. That's why they are different sizes.
 
Last edited:

CMDR Carbo

CMDR Carbo
jammedhamed said:
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 aView attachment 231746View attachment 231747
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 b
View attachment 231751View attachment 231753
Byua Chraei LR-C c26-8 2 c
View attachment 231755View attachment 231756


Here are 3 planets I randomly picked orbiting a gas giant some 10K Ly from Beagle Point.
Personally, I am preferring the older Horizons rocky planets, as they seemed more varied and interesting, and you could see the canyons and details in higher visual fidelity. Furthermore, rocky planets in the old tech had more interesting features in general.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

Only thing I want to say is how much better the stars and galaxies look on the backdrop in the bottom screenshots.
 

Kaocraft

Kaocraft
Valorin said:
Title said rocky planet comparison. Not that it's about planets from space.
I even said that I agree on most of those. So my pictures weren't an argument against your post. I mean... yours are planets from space. Mine are planets on-surface.
Hard to compare those.

EDIT:
But here's a direct comparison of Ao A1. In this case Odyssey absolutely wins in my opinion:

Horizons:
View attachment 231947

Odyssey:
View attachment 231948

I didn't make these shots for this thread but had them lying around because my fleet carrier is parked there and I was curious about the difference it would make. That's why they are different sizes.
Click to expand...
Wow yeah the Odyssey planet is Way Bigger! Definitely an improvement!
;)
 

Valorin

Valorin
Mengy said:
See I prefer the Horizons planet over the EDO in this comparison. It just looks far more interesting to me as an explorer.
Click to expand...
I'm an explorer too, and for me the Odyssey one looks far more interesting and more realistic. :)
Plus those different colours on the planet translate to different zones. The reddish ones are highly volcanic mountain areas while the darker areas are mostly burnt rock.
That's functionality though, but it does tie in to the looks of planets in Odyssey. To all of them actually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom