Ultra + is a disgusting downgrade

[NM 14]

I'm sorry, I need to replace the picture so that you don't think I used screenshots with different orbit heights. In fact, the higher the track, the worse the quality of UL +. The sample pic is the one that appeared on the front floor. I can't send the original pic, so I can only reduce it.

 

[NM 14]

I did try replacing the reference to the UltraPlus LOD table with UltraForCapture (as it was previously called) on the off chance this LOD table was still in the game. It didn't work.

As for performance, I did not have significant performance issues related to UltraForCapture previously, and if some geometry issues could be sorted out, would have used it everywhere.

I agree with you very much. Your shadow XML has benefited me a lot. We used self-made performance patches in Odyssey, so ULFC is a very enjoyable mode. For friends who have never experienced this mode, it seems that some explanations don't make sense, and I don't want ULFC to be removed. if the performance is not enough, u can use lower options instead of deleting the highest option. (In fact, changing fog and shadow is enough to greatly increase the number of frames)

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

Ultra+, at 3440x1440 and regular SS 1.0:

Using those settings, what are your framerate (and specs)?

 

[Viajero]

I'm sorry, I need to replace the picture so that you don't think I used screenshots with different orbit heights. In fact, the higher the track, the worse the quality of UL +. The sample pic is the one that appeared on the front floor. I can't send the original pic, so I can only reduce it.View attachment 255325

In both your previous post pic and this one your picture is comparing very different altitudes on the right and on the left and LODs are obviously going to be very different. Hence the reason I have insisted in you letting us know both the names of the planets and the altitude you took those ULFC pics at so we can be 100% sure we can see the way they look after update 6.

If you have a few planet names from ULFC pictures you may have taken in the bubble area if possible that would be great. Would be great aswell if you can upload those somewhere I can then download.

Here you have an Ultra+ picture at a bit higher altitude, which is probably comparable to the altitude in your ULFC one. Even after you look at it at 100% (you can download from my flickr album) you will see it is perfectly comparable to your ULFC one: We can see all details and shadows. And the only thing that remains to be discussed here really is personal taste or to get more or less interesting planet features or more or less favorable shots to be honest.

Now, I fully agree that things can be still improved in certain areas. For example once you get to the order of thousands of Km orbits, and especially for the largest planets the resolution and detail is lost in some cases (dont go to Achenar 3 ), but that was also the case before update 6, at least in my experience. And then in the other extreme, at very low altitudes in the hundreds of meters or lower we can see often LOD popping and shimmering shadows as we fly by. The stellar forge and current graphic tech (weather ULFC or Ultra+) seem to be more ideal for intermediate altitudes.

In any event I think the current state of the planetary tech is as competitive as ULFC in most areas, or at least I dont think it is the "disgusting" downgrade you say it is . Weather we prefer ULFC or Ultra+, perfect or not, I hope we can agree that there isn´t anything out there that can offer this level of detail at 1:1 scale.

 

[Erei]

I'm doing some explo, and I feel like rocky world are of much less quality than Ice world, overall. More blurry, lower res overall IMO.

Might be something ?

 

[Viajero]

Using those settings, what are your framerate (and specs)?

Around 160-180 FPS

GTX2080Ti

This my settings:

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

Around 160-180 FPS

GTX2080Ti

This my settings:

Same settings on my 2070 yields 45-50 on planets - and thats running only 2560x1080 with normal upscale.

Horizons yields 85-110 on planets.

 

[NM 14]

I'm doing some explo, and I feel like rocky world are of much less quality than Ice world, overall. More blurry, lower res overall IMO.

Might be something ?

Based on my modeling experience, I guess that now it should be low LOD + mapping...

However, there are serious bugs and blurs in the mapping. You can see the mountain low LOD of another layer through them. This should be a way to save performance...

In fact, this direction is wrong. The most obvious places for the number of frames are shadows, CZ, and the number of fog layers. When you close them in XML, you can even increase the number of frames by 100+ !!!

 

[NM 14]

In both your previous post pic and this one your picture is comparing very different altitudes on the right and on the left and LODs are obviously going to be very different. Hence the reason I have insisted in you letting us know both the names of the planets and the altitude you took those ULFC pics at so we can be 100% sure we can see the way they look after update 6.

If you have a few planet names from ULFC pictures you may have taken in the bubble area if possible that would be great. Would be great aswell if you can upload those somewhere I can then download.

Here you have an Ultra+ picture at a bit higher altitude, which is probably comparable to the altitude in your ULFC one. Even after you look at it at 100% (you can download from my flickr album) you will see it is perfectly comparable to your ULFC one: We can see all details and shadows. And the only thing that remains to be discussed here really is personal taste or to get more or less interesting planet features or more or less favorable shots to be honest.

Now, I fully agree that things can be still improved in certain areas. For example once you get to the order of thousands of Km orbits, and especially for the largest planets the resolution and detail is lost in some cases (dont go to Achenar 3 ), but that was also the case before update 6, at least in my experience. And then in the other extreme, at very low altitudes in the hundreds of meters or lower we can see often LOD popping and shimmering shadows as we fly by. The stellar forge and current graphic tech (weather ULFC or Ultra+) seem to be more ideal for intermediate altitudes.

In any event I think the current state of the planetary tech is as competitive as ULFC in most areas, or at least I dont think it is the "disgusting" downgrade you say it is . Weather we prefer ULFC or Ultra+, perfect or not, I hope we can agree that there isn´t anything out there that can offer this level of detail at 1:1 scale.

Of course, we all love this game, otherwise I won't take so many screenshots to boast and praise the planet technology in front of people, but I and the people around me have been playing with ULFC. Yes, now we v lost it. The gap is too obvious, especially after you are used to using ULFC terrain.

Here are some lists that you can look for in turn, but not in the bubbles, because I've been exploring shooting and showing them...

Praea Eurl ZF-M d8-0 (each land)
Pru Eurl EW-T d4-1 (each land)
Pru Eurl GI-Q d6-1 (each land)
Pru Eurl EC-S d5-2 (each land)
Pru Eurl NQ-G c13-0 (each land)
Sifeae VJ-X d2-3 (each land)
Sifeae GN-W c4-0 (each land)
Sifeae YM-X c3-1 (each land)
Pro Eurl VN-B (each land)
Pro Eurl SL-Z b3-0 (each land)
Plio Eurl YR-A d14-8 (each land)
.
.
.
more

 

[Erei]

Found the most boring world ever (outoppy pw-e c11-4 a2). I feel that one missed patch 6.

Not only that but, but the ground is just flat. Like, the entire planet is flat with a few crater here and there.

Ultra +.


So far, ice world have been usually good looking, but rocky world have oscillated from "meh" to "WTH ?". Might be random and stuff, I'll keep exploring.

 

[Viajero]

Found the most boring world ever (outoppy pw-e c11-4 a2). I feel that one missed patch 6.
View attachment 255426
View attachment 255427
Not only that but, but the ground is just flat. Like, the entire planet is flat with a few crater here and there.
View attachment 255428
Ultra +.


So far, ice world have been usually good looking, but rocky world have oscillated from "meh" to "WTH ?". Might be random and stuff, I'll keep exploring.

Hehe, no, there are also plenty of boring planets in update 6, same as there were tons of boring planets aswell before update 6 . As a general rule (there is always plenty of exceptions), the larger the planet and more mass, the flatter and more boring. Personally, even if with less features and being flatter, I love larger mass planets because they manage to convey an awesome sense of scale and size with the horizon extending so far away.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Everything looks very bad, like these

 

[Morbad]

Has anyone tried increasing "BlendTargetsResolution" to see if that mitigates the perceived loss of quality?

 

[Erei]

Only speaking graphic quality.
The quality of planets vary greatly from altitude (it tend to look bad at high orbit) and also from planet to planet.

This, for example, is good at the center of the picture, while it's bad at the bottom right, and bottom middle left.
This is bad to :

On the other hand, if it wasn't for the repetitive tiling (another issue), this would be good :

There are clear discrepancies between planets and altitude. Sometimes just dropping a bit lower will load the proper stuff, and it look good, even though the planet look terrible from orbit.

Ultra +

 

[NM 14]

Has anyone tried increasing "BlendTargetsResolution" to see if that mitigates the perceived loss of quality?

It's no use. I tried it on the day of UP6. After upgrading it to 2048, I can't solve the mosaic.
This may reduce the pixel square, but I'm not sure because it's still very blurred.
!!Be careful not to increase to 4096, which can lead to severe CTD .!!

 

[NM 14]

Everything looks very bad, like theseView attachment 255440View attachment 255438View attachment 255437

If the planet is close enough to the star and bright enough, you will find a huge mosaic. like #30 post
This is the difference in drawing mode, which is similar to that horizon uses pics for phased transition, rather than ULFC uses pure model LOD
I don't mind optimizing the reduced terrain model, however, the highest quality should not be deleted directly. Some of us have just bought 3080 and 3090 for this

 

[NM 14]

Now that you mention CTDs... What happened that it suddenly stopped for me? Today the game runs absolutely stable for me - and I was playing at least 8 hours today. Before, I had at least 3 CTDs per day (usually more). I'm certainly not complaining...

EDIT:

Never ever say such things in the public. And poof - there goes my day without a CTD...

Ha ha, I'm not talking about a game bug, but because I modified the XML to try to save ULFC

 

[Erei]

I find this planet interesting to show various good aspect, and bad ones IMO.

Taken in ultra+, and I went at minimum speed for entry, with a relatively shallow angle. Textures and LOD had enough time to load and unload.

From orbit, it's rather average. It's OK. Nothing fancy. A bit blurry especially toward the edge of the screen (something I noticed a lot)

The next one is interesting for the 2 mountains. The one on the upper left is quite poorly made. The bottom half of it is smooth like ice cream, while the upper part is very noisy, for no reason. Looks like the mountain have hair.
Also note the crater in the flank of said mountain, which just followed the slope, like a sticker.

Meanwhile on the upper right, we have a mountain which isn't smooth at all and as such have a natural look to it. That one is consistent. The other isn't.

Finally, closer yet, overall it is rather good, but the upper left corner is a stain of very low resolution stuff. Blurry, no details.... It's really poor.

Eventually, I think the core issue is still there : LOD are a problem. The game can look quite good, but often the LOD just goes "nope" and you get low detail blurry stuff.
Also, the details are very random. Craters are "painted" over by the colors with no apparent logic. Textures are stretched at times on hill side, crater impact are "painted" on a mountain flank without taking into account the fact it's a mountain flank. Either the mountain appeared after the crater, and it should have been changed (or even made invisible), or it would have fallen on a mountain, and the crater shape would have been changed accordingly.

I noticed that even "noise" texture is applied randomly :

This noise texture, the "rough" one, is pretty much on every planet I've been. Color change but overall it's the same. It's placed randomly it feels, over the hill, on the side, whatever. The only place it makes sense is on the small mountain on the right, but other than that it's very random.

 

[Mogen Teras]

Around 160-180 FPS

GTX2080Ti

Yeah I'm gonna take that with a huge grain of salt. Even RTX 3090s have trouble maintaining 60fps regardless of 1080p or 4K; there is no way that you and your 2080 Ti are somehow the ONLY person who is getting 160-180fps in Odyssey

 

[Viajero]

A few more

Yeah I'm gonna take that with a huge grain of salt. Even RTX 3090s have trouble maintaining 60fps regardless of 1080p or 4K; there is no way that you and your 2080 Ti are somehow the ONLY person who is getting 160-180fps in Odyssey

These FPS are in space and for those pictures I have posted above in Ultra+ after update 6, as this discussion was for orbit related pictures of course. And I assure you it is correct. In settlements or social hubs is a different story.