The Technology Behind Seamless Planetary Exploration

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Bounder

Bounder
But just imagine how much cooler it would've been to be able to make that trip between moons via proper spaceflight (ie. without speed limits).

Travelling between moons at speeds slower than antique aircraft is certainly an accomplishment, but if the speed limit was removed it could be a fairly routine option for hardcore pilots, not to mention far more entertaining. Imagine if you could set your autopilot to a high-velocity low-pass slingshot orbit between the two moons - how cool would that be? That's the kind of freedom i'd expected from E4..

One remark in the NMS interview (posted in the OP) that's especially notable is the admission that the dev team kept running up against what seemed like insurmountable technical hurdles - giving an example of the kinds of conflicting requirements the engine had to reconcile in generating realistic geology.. yet they kept at it, and innovated solutions. Just as Mr B. used to, before conceding that proper spaceflight was basically tangential to core gameplay..
 

Katkon

K
I think NMS and ED are fundamentally different games. Yes, you fly a space ship, can engage in battle and fly to planets - so, on the surface they look similar. But the "physics" are totally different - basically absent in NMS, the complexity of flying isn't there in NMS (it's arcade more than sim) and graphics are a completely different - stylistically speaking. I too am excited for NMS BUT only because of the possibilities it implies for ED. The flight model combined with a completely solitary playing experience means that even if I buy it (am unsure, to be honest) it won't keep me entertained for more than a week or two. I don't play single player games anymore - ever. Plus, my kids would ask me why I'm playing a kiddie game. :)
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
J
Kaybe said:
Many people, including no doubt the FD devs, are eager to check NMS when it launches. But comparing this to ED is very apples and oranges. ED is obsessed with realism and physics and making planets and stars as they should normally look and orbit. NMS favors theme, a stylized look over realism, and some navigational shortcuts ... which is perfectly fine for the game it is, but not something you can use as a reference point for the ED devs to look at.
Click to expand...

ED are obsessed with realism? And yet their flight model is anything but as well as 99.9% of all their planets are guess work which makes them no different from NMS. What part of NMS's planets aren't in normal orbits?
 

shadragon

shadragon
Two different projects, two different approaches. I have NMS on order (and Everspace and Descent: Underground) and will be jumping in as soon as it's released.

Different is not a bad thing. NMS is a simpler game overall because it's designed for consoles as well as PC's. I'm not deleting my Elite copies yet.
 
Last edited:

Viking84

Viking84
Wylie28 said:
The transition from surface to space in ED IS seamless. Its the transition from instance to instance that isn't seamless. What do you think the planet you see in orbital cruise is?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting view on the subject - technically you are right but the end result is the same, no? I have superfast fiberoptic internet and a decent computer, yet dropping out of Supercruise on approach to a planet takes a number of seconds, enough to "stop" the glide animation. As you say it is due to networking issues, but for the end user that doesn't matter, you still end up with the "rooms in space" feeling.
 

Sashenka

S
The network instance change are still my biggest disappointment, especially since the engine support seamless transitions. I had hoped that they wouldn't be present un solo mode but they are still there. I would prefer an instanced solar system but this would end up with less interactions with other CMDRs. They wanted to avoid boxes in space with SC but ended up doing just that with instances. It's sad really since the engine supports it but FD cannot 'show' it.
 

Dielos

Dielos
shadragon said:
This statement is so wrong as to be bordering on delusion.

Watch and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0
Click to expand...
Holy Crap! :eek:

First, I can't believe I watched that to the end. I didn't get most of it...

Second, It gives you whole new chunk of respect for the devs behind this game.

And Third, It makes some all-knowing people in this forum look incredibly stupid, myself included at some points.


It sure gives me a completely new insight into the complexity of this game. Thanks for that link and have some rep! (will have to be imagined rep, seems I can't give you more...)
 
Last edited:

Pib_Juju

Pib_Juju
Yeah, I really think procedural generation is the new '3d graphics'. It's still kind of in its infancy, but already doing all sorts of amazing things. It's an incredible concept, really-- how you can unpack immense levels of detail and content consistently the same way, over and over, for any number of people. These are actual 'places' in a way that traditionally designed game worlds aren't.

FD has already done an amazing job on the groundwork with their non-atmospheric planets, but I'm very interested to see how it's embellished over time. And it's interesting to me in a way that No Man's Sky is not (no offense to the No Man's Sky devs), because E:D is striving to keep it's feet in science. I mean, a volcano spewing smoke is pretty, but a volcano spewing smoke that's sitting along a tectonic plate edge that's also formed a mountain range is just a lot more interesting for its authenticity.

What I'm hoping for with E:D is that they model atmospheric compositions somewhat accurately, considering the planet's mass, distance from the sun, whether or not it has a molten core (and a magnetic field), etc., etc. It'd be really cool to see differently colored skies with differently colored suns, cloud formations coming off mountain ranges that follow the tectonic plates, etc.
 
Last edited:

who?

who?
Ziggy Stardust said:
A game designed for cowards hiding from each other in fear.

Where do I sign up? :D
Click to expand...

We can't tell you, or we might all accidentally meet each other. (Oh noes!!)

Sounds pretty interesting to me - looking forward to trying this too, along with SC. The more spaces, the better.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom