Update 18.02 | Wednesday 10th April

[Shurimal]

It kind of has this "optimization mini-game" built-in, where you have to weigh the pros and cons of each type of module.

This only really applies to weapons and utilities. Do I take beam or pulse lasers, gimbals or fixed, do I equip chaff or KWS? For core modules there is little reason to go for anything else other than A-rated power plant/FSD and D-rated life support. The only exceptions are gonker tanks where you want B-rated core, and D-rated thrusters/power distros for exploration ship.

For optional modules it's even simpler—you take what the mission needs and for combat ships I don't think anyone ever uses anything else than D-rated HRP-s and MRP-s.

 

[Darkfyre99]

It kind of has this "optimization mini-game" built-in, where you have to weigh the pros and cons of each type of module. Adding even more significant modules that add to this "mini-game" is a good thing, not a bad one.

As @Shurimal write above, that’s only true optional “mission role” modules. For “Core” modules, between reward hyperinflation and engineering power creep, it’s pretty much a choice between “A” for power or “D” modules for weight, with the occasional “B” thrown in for endurance builds. The frustrating thing is, for me at least, is that this wasn’t always the case. Early in the game’s development, when operational costs were a thing, “C” and “E” modules also had a niche. “C” gave you the most bang for your buck, while “E” was the economic choice. Thanks to those operational cost, it was literally possible to more ship than your skill level could maintain.

I miss those days.

 

[Shurimal]

engineering power creep

Engineering has the positive effect of diversifying the same modules. Eg an A-rated power plant can have drastically different power output, heat efficiency and integrity depending on what purpose it fills. And it's especially true for weapons—engineering and experimental effects can completely change what the weapon does and how you use it. Overall I find the engineering to be a net-positive, though there are some outliers that are more down to certain ships being unbalanced* instead of engineering power creep.

*Make (hybrid) hull tanks great again! Module kills are more fun than brute-forcing through thousands of MJ shields!

 

[DjVortex]

This only really applies to weapons and utilities. Do I take beam or pulse lasers, gimbals or fixed, do I equip chaff or KWS? For core modules there is little reason to go for anything else other than A-rated power plant/FSD and D-rated life support. The only exceptions are gonker tanks where you want B-rated core, and D-rated thrusters/power distros for exploration ship.

Well, even if that's true, all the more reason to welcome this new unique C-rated module! Not only does it use a rating that sees little love, but it brings with it the min-maxing element of "win some, lose some" at full force.

But you bring up a good point about engineering, as it helps increasing the options even further thanks to there being multiple possible avenues of engineering, almost all of them also bringing the "win some, lose some" optimization into play. I must admit that's a great argument for adding some kind of engineering support for this module. I am less averse to the idea now. (Would still be nice if engineering wouldn't make the new FSD just overwhelmingly superior to everything else, because that would once again go into the power creep territory. Some moderate improvements, with some moderate costs to other aspects.)

 

[STRONTIUM DOG]

Once again I can’t help but be reminded of this article: “Water Finds A Crack”
Frontier's biggest flaw as a developer in my opinion is that they tend to make gameplay with lots of "cracks" in it.

being half irish i can find the crack's too
the destiny of games is to become boring, not to be fun........


shall we to play a game?
(put in) GTNW
would you prefer a good game of chess?

 

[DjVortex]

By the way, what is the current situation with the flickering shadows issue? I'm not sure if something has changed, but I sometimes have seen flickering shadows, but not as much. Even with the light source at a very low angle there doesn't seem to be much flickering anymore. However, there definitely seems to be a weird clipping problem, where shadows get clipped at a rather short distance, and sometimes may even disappear completely. Has anybody noticed any such changes in shadow behavior?

This appears to be a distance-to-camera clipping issue rather than a distance-to-object. If I move the camera closer it shows the entire shadow:

 

[DjVortex]

It's actually a quite notorious problem. I don't get flickering shadows, at least on the ground, anymore, which is good. Those were actually really annoying and very detrimental to gameplay. The current problem is much more cosmetic in nature, but it still destroys immersion and enjoyability of the game. For example, this entire area should be in shadow, and in fact depending on where the camera is positioned it is. However, likewise depending on the camera position you get these glitched partial rectangular shadows, with parts of the terrain being illuminated (when it shouldn't be):

 

[Shurimal]

By the way, what is the current situation with the flickering shadows issue?

Certainly happens, but seems to be less frequent. I highly suspect it's something to do with LOD-s, it only happens at certain distance, or more precisely, at certain angular size (or rather on-screen size) of objects—eg you can zoom in/out in free camera and at certain zoom level flickering happens. I see it with my fleet carrier and also in stations when approaching my landing pad.

 

[Fixitman]

I've only seen severe flickering on my third commander. That was my only Steam commander. The issue went away when I switched him to use my Frontier install. I've since completely removed the Steam install from my system.

There is definitely a difference between the Frontier install and the Steam install. Both were using the same main settings folder from my C: drive, but looked different during gameplay. My third commander was also the only one to have frequent issues with freezing upon exiting the game. That issue is resolved as well.

TLDR: If you're having issues, and it's a Steam install, it might be due to Steam's custom install.

 

[SpaceGibbon]

Has anyone else been getting serious fps and frame drop issues in and around stations after this update or is it just me? And it only happens about 60 or 70% of the time when at a station or fleet carrier. Sometimes it's fine at the same station.

 

[V'larr]

That's true.

ED has received over 100 major updates (including 2 expansions) over the last 10 years. It's unusual for a game such as ED to still receive major updates (mostly for free) after a decade. Most games are put in maintenance mode a lot earlier. Granted ED has not yet achieved the full vision of Braben during the Kickstarter. What's missing = ship interiors, Earth-like worlds, hunt wild game (creatures) on planets, ship boarding. Braben also mentioned base building.

Yeah, but very few game developers are so super engaged with their player base. Rockstar and Blizzard doesn't do anything like that.

Most of those updates, to be perfectly blunt, have been "nothingburgers" in terms of content. QOLs, bugfixing, Thargoids, Odyssey (if you can cope with the lack of anti-aliasing), and reworks of exploration & mining that nobody asked for (but did turn out to be nice anyhow), those are the only highlights I can think of since about 2018. (edit: oh, and Fleet Carriers I guess)

If you're super into the Thargoid xenocide narrative, then I'm sure that's to be viewed in a brighter lens, but it has next to no relation to anything else already established in the game. It feels like an add-on rather than anything integrated with or improving upon existing game systems in the Elite world.

And yeah, I would have to agree there's depressingly few game developers doing things 'right' - Blizzard frankly I don't think has been doing things right for the past 10 years; I can't comment on Rockstar myself - and the whole gaming industry has a lot to learn by observing everything AH is doing right now, because they're hitting home run after home run in every field, including realizing and owning up to mistakes and not pretending to be perfect.

Like, genuinely, the feeling AH gives me is "Oh... this is how being involved in a live service game is supposed to be? It could be this good?", to the point of getting a little emotional - after decades of enduring the likes of Wargaming, Blizzard, Bungie, and a half-dozen neglected titles I could also rant about (being the gamer nerd I am), Arrowhead and Larian studios are standing out of an ever-increasing amount of en-crap-ified mush, and demonstrating how it's supposed to be done.

So while it is true that "few game developers are super engaged with their player base" - that's not a good example to follow at all, and really is just a testament to how much gaming is struggling these days to find the right path. Communication is the number one problem humankind faces in life, it's an understandable flaw, but it remains a flaw nonetheless to do it poorly or not at all, and failure to communicate will inevitably worsen the outcome.

 

[V'larr]

so if i understand this correctly
you have high expectations, none of which has been ever met over all those years. so you keep your expectations high, stay in place and get yourself even more disappointed. and this has happened many times before. nothing is to your liking, it is fdevs fault and it should be in excruciating lengths discussed why and how to please you.

You have not understood this correctly. I have high hopes and do not believe it is a good thing to lower one's expectations to the common denominator, because that is how stagnation occurs...as does avoiding or discouraging communication, which need not be excruciating or even lengthy at all.

 

[V'larr]

Elite Dangerous is in fact quite notorious for the amount of customizability of the ships. Ships designed for different roles can and have to be built differently to be optimal for that role. It's often a balancing act between compromises: Min-maxing a ship for a particular thing means it will be worse for another thing. And that's a great thing about the game. It kind of has this "optimization mini-game" built-in, where you have to weigh the pros and cons of each type of module. Adding even more significant modules that add to this "mini-game" is a good thing, not a bad one.

On another note, it's quite notorious how many players complain about engineering and material grinding. Well, here you have a very useful innovative new module that doesn't require any grinding nor engineering whatsoever! And what's the main thing that people complain about? The lack of engineering for the module, of course. Oh well.

Yeah, "of course", because Engineering remains a massive power spike over vanilla modules - which is a flaw that's been highlighted from the onset starting from the kickstarter days where the feature was spitballed as "tweaks and modifications".

I agree, more interesting options to outfit our ships with is a good thing. The word there is 'interesting'. If the module has such strict downsides that its use cases and reasons to have fun with it are nil (aside from the self-fulfilling "just use it for fun" sentiment), then that is not interesting to me - much like the Universal Limpet Controller at class 7.

If we were permitted to Engineer it, that would at least present the opportunity to mitigate those downsides and thereby increase the fun that could be had with this new module, albeit time-and-unlock-gated for any new players as is the case with anything else that relates to Engineering.

 

[V'larr]

This only really applies to weapons and utilities. Do I take beam or pulse lasers, gimbals or fixed, do I equip chaff or KWS? For core modules there is little reason to go for anything else other than A-rated power plant/FSD and D-rated life support. The only exceptions are gonker tanks where you want B-rated core, and D-rated thrusters/power distros for exploration ship.

For optional modules it's even simpler—you take what the mission needs and for combat ships I don't think anyone ever uses anything else than D-rated HRP-s and MRP-s.

Quick sidebar here but there is food for optional slot thought:

• Guardian Shield Reinforcement Packages (very valuable and capable of giving any ship worthwhile shielding values)
• highly valuable SCBs (mostly useful at class 5 and above, given the GSRP alternative)
• Even hull tanks never need more than 2 MRPs, 1 will suffice for most purposes (as a ship that doesn't outlive its modules is getting no value out of more module protection - there's youtube videos you can look up as evidence)
• If you readily accept the penalties of having an NPC crewmember, SLF hangars on ships capable of having one are a notable firepower addition.

As for utilities -

• KWS only adds maybe 40% to bounties to targets you kill (and are often out-of-system, increasing the time it takes to hand them in), which is completely negligible when the real money in combat comes from stacking missions, has an insanely high power draw requirement (which could translate into taking more GSRPs instead), & has a hefty opportunity cost against always-reliable shield boosters
• Chaff's still arguable for small ships but falls off in value against a shield booster for larger & less agile ships

It's the utility slot choices that are bland for combat, since none of them present a practical use case over the simple strength of additional shielding.

For pulse/beam/gimballed/fixed, the question is how well you can maintain high time on target manually. Using gimballed is a good option most of the time, both because there's frequently agile & small opponents and because it enables you to fly in a manner that's less constrained than "keep nose painted on the target at all times". Burst lasers make a good pairing for fixed mounts, because the time you need to be precisely on target is less and comes in predictable increments; pulse behaves closer to beams and is more useful to apply Emissive/Scramble Spectrum, or if you are absolutely strapped for power and/or distro draw.

Personally I like a mix of fixed & gimballed weapons, because NPCs spam chaff frequently and it's a pain (and objectively a detriment to effective DPS). And I personally value having a fuel scoop & a FSD booster (usually in a small slot) to get around conveniently without need for transfer.

 

[V'larr]

Engineering has the positive effect of diversifying the same modules. Eg an A-rated power plant can have drastically different power output, heat efficiency and integrity depending on what purpose it fills. And it's especially true for weapons—engineering and experimental effects can completely change what the weapon does and how you use it. Overall I find the engineering to be a net-positive, though there are some outliers that are more down to certain ships being unbalanced* instead of engineering power creep.

*Make (hybrid) hull tanks great again! Module kills are more fun than brute-forcing through thousands of MJ shields!

I'd have to disagree, it results in uniformity as much as it does diversification, because the relevant use cases for the options don't really exist (like choosing to sacrifice heat efficiency of Armored for the benefit of Overcharged, that's bad for combat because of how integral heat management is to managing your WEP sustain), and there's often a clear & distinct "best option" (like D-rated long range sensors or Charge Enhanced + Super Conduits on the PD). In PvP Armor resist & damage types become an normalized mush where it no longer matters what weapon is used against what and the only question is really "are you using PAs & the module-damaging nature railguns, or not?".

I somewhat agree with your sentiment on (hybrid) hull tanks, Engineering took all the hitpoint inflation issues that were brought on by shield boosters + SCBs + reinforcement packages & punted it through the roof, but I digress, this is all sliding too far off-topic.

__

Certainly if Fdev chooses to allow Engineering to be applied to the new FSD, I hope it achieves "an interesting but all-around viable alternative" to regular jump-range-focused FSDs - in defiance of my expectations.

 

[Shurimal]

• KWS only adds maybe 40% to bounties to targets you kill (and are often out-of-system, increasing the time it takes to hand them in), which is completely negligible when the real money in combat comes from stacking missions, has an insanely high power draw requirement (which could translate into taking more GSRPs instead), & has a hefty opportunity cost against always-reliable shield boosters
• Chaff's still arguable for small ships but falls off in value against a shield booster for larger & less agile ships

It's the utility slot choices that are bland for combat, since none of them present a practical use case over the simple strength of additional shielding.

KWS is where module grade really matters--lower grades have lower power draw, but also range. Which one you choose depends on your power budget. And I personally find the 20...30% payout boost worthwhile, but then I do long RES sessions where I get ~20 mil for the controlling faction and the extra ~5 mil is always nice, especially if I'm still boosting my reputation in the neighborhood and the whole mission stack pays 10...20 mils (and I may go for reputation reward for even less credits). Handing in is no longer a problem, you can hand in any bounties anywhere, no need to seek out specific systems where the faction is present or deal with IF. Plus there are mission-specific utilities that more specialized builds use: ECM was made useful for evac ships in thargoid war, manifest scanners, point defence, heat sink launchers, caustic sinks etc.

I'd have to disagree, it results in uniformity as much as it does diversification,

Without engineering nothing would be different: grade A for most things, grade D for weight weenies, grade B for gonkers. Engineering gives you options for tweaking these three module grades for specific needs--not all builds are following "The Meta".

because the relevant use cases for the options don't really exist (like choosing to sacrifice heat efficiency of Armored for the benefit of Overcharged, that's bad for combat because of how integral heat management is to managing your WEP sustain), and there's often a clear & distinct "best option" (like D-rated long range sensors or Charge Enhanced + Super Conduits on the PD). In PvP Armor resist & damage types become an normalized mush where it no longer matters what weapon is used against what and the only question is really "are you using PAs & the module-damaging nature railguns, or not?".

There's quite a lot of variety and special use cases once you stop blindly following "The Meta".

I use all 3 power plant options depending on ship. An FDL or a Vulture requires overcharged PP and my prismatic Cutter has one too; Courier and AX builds need low emissions; armored is for general use on ships that can fit big enough PP. And then there are special spicy combat builds that benefit from overheating the ship

Power distro: weapon focused is useful for laser mining and specific AX builds. My Phantom uses stripped down experimental because the PD of that ship is so absurdly oversized that the faster charge rate of super conduits simply doesn't matter.

Sensors: light weight D for most non-combat builds; long range D for most combat purposes; light weight A for speed focused combat builds.

Armor: I went for lightweight, layered plating reactive on my Chief for more speed. Lose ~10% raw integrity compared to deep plating, but higher resistances of LW make up for it and mobility is important. Some use thermal resistant on reactive. Niche use cases, but it's good to have the option.

 

[aRJay]

...

I use all 3 power plant options depending on ship. An FDL or a Vulture requires overcharged PP and my prismatic Cutter has one too; Courier and AX builds need low emissions; armored is for general use on ships that can fit big enough PP. And then there are special spicy combat builds that benefit from overheating the ship

...

I am shocked to find that my FdLs are both using the wrong power plant options, the all MC one has an Armoured(Legacy) G1, the all beam one has a Low Emissions G1.

I would of course fix this if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't causing me not to have fun.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

FDL required overcharged when it still had a size 5 plant. Mine (and the Mamba) run fine on armoured. Vulture though ? Overcharged G6 CG reward to be able to power a prismatic shield.

 

[Shurimal]

I am shocked to find that my FdLs are both using the wrong power plant options, the all MC one has an Armoured(Legacy) G1, the all beam one has a Low Emissions G1.

Depends on the build, the classic prismatic with SCB-s plasma Ferdie (I'd wager about 70% of all Ferdies out there are some variation of this) will not run on armored power plants Of course if you use biweaves and MC-s or frags you can get away with whatever.

 

[Morbad]

By the way, what is the current situation with the flickering shadows issue? I'm not sure if something has changed, but I sometimes have seen flickering shadows, but not as much. Even with the light source at a very low angle there doesn't seem to be much flickering anymore. However, there definitely seems to be a weird clipping problem, where shadows get clipped at a rather short distance, and sometimes may even disappear completely. Has anybody noticed any such changes in shadow behavior?

View attachment 389665

This appears to be a distance-to-camera clipping issue rather than a distance-to-object. If I move the camera closer it shows the entire shadow:

View attachment 389666

This used to happen in the old shadow system if the TexelStability parameter was incorrect. It pretty much vanished when they moved to EVSM shadows on odyssey, unless the cross fade cascade distances were messed with.

In this case, I think they tried to fix the flicker they reintroduced in U18, but instead created a new bug.