Told you so.

[PavelKCZ]

When you were told that orbiting Earth at a certain speed is a much more accurate method than landing and eyeballing the curvature of the horizon on your monitor (to say nothing of gauging scale through pre-alpha videos on youtube), you promptly ignored it. If you're so sure, go and measure.. then go park in Saturn's rings and tell me that Saturn is only some 100-200km in diameter (or whatever number you wish to claim). This all after being proven wrong about 1:1 being impossible in a 3d engine.

Well, to be honest, this is not entirely correct. You can't measure the size of the object in 3D game by orbiting it at certain speed. Simply because you do not know, what is your actual speed (it can be totally different from what your in-game speed gauge is saying).

On the other side, the approximately correct measurement can be done with parallax measurement. Of course, only if game engine does not explicitly distort the geometry (the focal distance of in-game camera is at least partially similar to human eye).

After all, it can be a nice test in existing version of ED. Just use your ship and fly away from Earth and Sol and stop at the point where Earth will have the same diameter (in pixels) as Sol. From navigation, you should be able to see the distance to Sol and distance to Earth. Take calculator, do the math. Glitch is, that with this method, you only will see if approx. the Sol and Earth diameters are in right ratio. But this experiment will not tell you anything about actual size.

I am affraid that accurately measure the diameter of some moon, we will need to wait for ED Horizons. Maybe we will be able to measure the actual size with help of three ships and lot of patience.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

Except that's not what's happening. Horizons will begin with airless bodies, and will be updated incrementally as more types of planets become available.

Incorrect. It has been confirmed that other types of planets will arrive in future seasons. This means additional expansion packs, given FD's definition of "Season."

Source: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=172167&page=66&p=2640554&viewfull=1#post2640554 (straight from Michael Brookes himself).

 

[Bit.Slade]

The people hating on NMS is hilarious to me.
"Oh no, where's muh realism?! Game is cartoony sh*t." <-- I've seen that parroted around on these forums at least 100 times.

 

[peter101cycle]

If anyone's actually booted up Star Citizen to check how that plays recently then they know E: D is in a damn good place.

Good idea, found some footage of SC from GamesCom on YouTube.

The game looks great but tbh, I'm not so sure the playability is going to be there. The complexity looks far worse than ED imho (e.g. mucking around with engineering controls to get systems back online).

So at the moment, Braben's release little, release often strategy, seems to be the better choice. SC could miss the goal posts by trying to be too much.

Still one to watch how things develop though.....

 

[PavelKCZ]

The people hating on NMS is hilarious to me.
"Oh no, where's muh realism?! Game is cartoony sh*t." <-- I've seen that parroted around on these forums at least 100 times.

IMHO this have nothing to do with hate. NMS (at least at the current state) simply does not have realistic visuals and look more like a cartoon. Nothing wrong with it. Minecraft also looks like a cartoon and it is a really good game (especially modded Minecraft like Direwolf20 FTB pack). But we cannot compare ED and NMS on the field of at least a bit "realistic" universe simulators.

 

[LetoAtreides2]

The people hating on NMS is hilarious to me.
"Oh no, where's muh realism?! Game is cartoony sh*t." <-- I've seen that parroted around on these forums at least 100 times.

As if Elite: Dangerous is a "serious," "deep" gaming experience in itself . . .

 

[3941]

The people hating on NMS is hilarious to me.
"Oh no, where's muh realism?! Game is cartoony sh*t." <-- I've seen that parroted around on these forums at least 100 times.

Well, because it's true... While I'm certainly not saying that NMS is gonna suck or anything, it still doesn't have the same appeal as ED to me.
The "planets" are tiny, not even close to moon sizes, the landscape generation looks weird, the colors are over the top, every planet seems to be throbbing with life.
That just doesn't generate the same atmosphere as Elite for me. I just love flying through this "real" galaxy.

And if you expect a lot of gameplay out of it, you probably expect wrong. Won't be very different from Elite. So if you don't like Elite, you probably won't like NMS for very long.
It's procedurally generated after all. And so the story, if it has any, probably won't be very exciting.

 

[Bit.Slade]

Yes, but a lot of people have been hating on it purely due to visuals, as if somehow it HAS to look realistic like ED or SC to be taken seriously. No Man's Sky is not a space sim, Sean Murray has said that much repeatedly. It's a game about exploring the universe and doing neat stuff along the way until you get to the center of the galaxy. But to back up my point, there is a post on the second page of this thread stating that NMS is the equivalent of a dog fart based on cartoony visuals/realism alone. I just don't understand a mental process like that.

 

[Surly_Badger]

Good idea, found some footage of SC from GamesCom on YouTube.

I was incredibly impressed. It's the best spacecraft hangar simulation I've ever seen. By far! When I watched the Gamescom reel, I was impressed that they have added more depth and game-play to the hangar simulation. 4 different hangars to explore! That's nothing to sneeze at.


(I'm a backer but I haven't even bothered to download it yet because I haven't seen any game-play that looks like it has a chance of holding my interest for much longer than it takes to download)

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

The people hating on NMS is hilarious to me.
"Oh no, where's muh realism?! Game is cartoony sh*t." <-- I've seen that parroted around on these forums at least 100 times.

To be fair for a GAME it looks fantastic. Problem is people rush to compare it to ED, when you can't. It's SP, arcadey, simplistic exploration game with carfting. It is simplistic and it aims to be simplistic even with all elements promised. ED aims for totally different tone and quite different gameplay too, MMO elements included.

 

[3941]

Yes, but a lot of people have been hating on it purely due to visuals, as if somehow it HAS to look realistic like ED or SC to be taken seriously. No Man's Sky is not a space sim, Sean Murray has said that much repeatedly. It's a game about exploring the universe and doing neat stuff along the way until you get to the center of the galaxy. But to back up my point, there is a post on the second page of this thread stating that NMS is the equivalent of a dog fart based on cartoony visuals/realism alone. I just don't understand a mental process like that.

I guess because it's always being brought up as an Elite competitor. In that regard, it might just as well be a dog fart, instead of the proclaimed hurricane from the OP.
It might become a great game, but it's an altogether different beast than Elite.

 

[Bit.Slade]

To be fair for a GAME it looks fantastic. Problem is people rush to compare it to ED, when you can't. It's SP, arcadey, simplistic exploration game with carfting. It is simplistic and it aims to be simplistic even with all elements promised. ED aims for totally different tone and quite different gameplay too, MMO elements included.

At least you get it. I love all sorts of space games, which is why I own both ED and SC...and I would gladly preorder NMS right now if given the chance. What I don't get is why some people just can't seem to understand that some games opt for a different art style instead of realism. No Man's Sky is directly inspired by old 70's/80's scifi art, so it seems very fitting that the visuals match as well. As far as the planets teeming with life, the devs have already stated that they have to show life in their public demos and that a vast majority won't contain life at all.

 

[Surly_Badger]

No Man's Sky sounds like it's pretty cool; I've been meaning to give it a whirl for a while. Not a big fan of the graphics but then I wasn't a big fan of World of Warcraft's graphical model, either. Not attemping photorealism is a good strategy, though, because a) photorealism is crazy hard and b) photorealism actually complicates game-play because then you get down to stuff like trying to snipe a pixel at extreme range.

The flipside of being able to dismiss NMS for being "cartoony" is having to complain about ED's stellar objects not being in the correct part of the visual spectrum, lacking accretion disks, gravity effects on closely paired objects, etc, etc. If you try to make things "look realistic" you fail unless your realism is so insane you're basically producing photorealistic reality. And that's not going to happen because a lot of the cool stuff in space is not photorealistic at all (hint: if you don't believe me, go stare at a main sequence star from close range without an atmosphere to keep your eyeballs from exploding)

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Just for a record I have mich bigger respect for NMS and Hello Games than CIG and Chris. They are aware what they are doing and I always love PG done justice. And no doubt NMS will also get "too repetitive" label at some point. But who cares - space games are back.

Just felt it needs to be said. Stop to use NMS as some bargain chip about Horizons expansion. Just don't. ED rocks and it seems NMS will rock too.

 

[PavelKCZ]

Well, "realism" in games is really problematic. For example from my own point of view, the largest limitation and problem in ED Horizons will be the procedural generation of moons/rocks/planets, because it will be totally unrealistic and it will mean that we will not be able to change anything on those moons/rocks/planets.

No way to use your huge plasma accelerator and change the way the river is flowing, no possibility to destroy a mountain on some moon, no way how to use your laser and engrave sign like "Servít je vůl", visible from orbit, to some dust surface on some forgotten moon.

But it is a way of life. Everything in computer games is a fake...

 

[Bit.Slade]

Just for a record I have mich bigger respect for NMS and Hello Games than CIG and Chris. They are aware what they are doing and I always love PG done justice. And no doubt NMS will also get "too repetitive" label at some point. But who cares - space games are back.

I don't think people realize just how impressive the tech behind NMS really is. You can find articles about the math they use and it's unbelievably cool. If I am not mistaken, Murray coded the entire terrain generation by himself.

 

[newman1702]

Well, to be honest, this is not entirely correct. You can't measure the size of the object in 3D game by orbiting it at certain speed. Simply because you do not know, what is your actual speed (it can be totally different from what your in-game speed gauge is saying).

Yea in case your speedometer is lying that method becomes problematic It's not an optimal method to measure at all given the game's control systems and lack of orbital mechanics (you'd have to approximate a circle around a planet), but assuming the speed indicator is accurate I was thinking it's probably good enough to just answer if the scale is in the ballpark or not. But yea, I remember taking my Asp as low over an ELW I discovered as my patience allowed, and looking down on islands and continents.. that ball o' blue green and white certain wasn't 25km in diameter. System map said it was 1.65 earth size and it kind of felt that way too. Plus, I think the theory that FD are lying about scale is nonsensical; there's so many games that openly have the wrong scale out there and are financially doing really well; SC for one. There's no reason to lie about having a realistic scale, sooner or later someone will figure you out and you run the risk of losing your credibility for no good reason.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I don't think people realize just how impressive the tech behind NMS really is. You can find articles about the math they use and it's unbelievably cool. If I am not mistaken, Murray coded the entire terrain generation by himself.

Same impressive tech what will bring us Horizons landings. Viva la PG!

 

[Some Useless Geek]

I like how "planetary landings" consist of asteroids and no atmosphere planets. Reason...Cant make a new flight system for atmospheric flight.

The very first thing I thought when I saw the model for the Vulture was that this is a creature of pure space. All the Elite spacecraft are supposed to be trans-atmospheric, aren't they? Well, bunkie, you put the Vulture in an atmosphere and all it will do is loop.

Actually, the same could be said of all the models in Elite. None of these craft are designed to enter an atmosphere and survive. Remember, folks, this isn't Star Wars where we simply wave our hands and ignore the laws of physics (even though the physics engine in Elite sucks out loud). Frontier has been touting Elite's proximity to "reality" in how things are supposed to work, but every "advancement" takes the game further into the reality weeds. What is trans-atmospheric going to be like when that comes around?

 

[pippo]

100+ backers (…) will cry bitter rage-blubberings on the forum because "their favorite feature" didn't make it into the game.

(…)backers are going to to put on a display of entitled babyish pram-rattling unlike anything you've ever seen before. It will be the Cascadia Fault-line Rip Richter 9 of web-forum ranting and foaming at the mouth.

a bunch of toddlers who think they're the board of directors who are shrieking purple-faced with rage if their favorite feature isn't in the game exactly as they imagined it should be.

Dude, you clearly got a talent to illustrate what's going on around here.

Spoiler