Update 6 Terrain Comparison Thread
- Thread starter BlackMaze
- Start date
Yup, you should make a list of 100 bad, average and great Horizon's planets and compare those with EDO. On average EDO will be easily better. The best of EDO will beat the best of Horizons. The worst of both will be... bad.
I'm pretty convinced at this point that either:
a), NMS has surpassed Elite so much that the devs have resorted to trying to make Elite look like NMS in order to "keep up", but horribly failing, or...
b), The only reason they changed the tech in the first place was so that they could get away with the "atmospheric planets are just the same airless planets we've been flying around on for years now but with a prettier skybox" thing easier.
Disregarding the fact that the devs have come out and said that the tech is, indeed, BROKEN, I have yet to see any photo proof of this. You gonna share some screenies, or....?
Dude, there are hundreds upon hundreds of fantastic screenshots in a specific topic. I am sure you can figure out the name of that topic.
But if you for some reason disagree, by all means continue playing Horizons and enjoy that. Not trying to convert you or anything, just saying that to me EDO looks classes better than Horizons.
At this point I'm wondering if the people bashing the new plantery tech (since update 6) have been exploring.
I'm actually working on a video compilation of planets seen from space, during the approach and on foot and I can't see how someone can think that it's worst than Horizon.
But hey, "tous les goûts sont dans la nature" !
I'm actually working on a video compilation of planets seen from space, during the approach and on foot and I can't see how someone can think that it's worst than Horizon.
But hey, "tous les goûts sont dans la nature" !
No offense, but you are wrong. Let me show you a photo. Of Earth.
U6 planet colors are still very, very conservative even to what only our planet has. When you then look at what only our solar system has it becomes pretty darn obvious that the galaxy has way, way more outrageous colors to offer than what U6 does.
People need to get the idea out of their heads that 'color = cartoonish, boring = realistic'. What makes NMS cartoonish is hopping pineapples on magically floating mountains. 'white and brown landscapes' are not incredibly implausible, in fact that is pretty much what Greenland looks like.
Ive been doing the same past couple days. Poor LOD (1km to surface to sometimes get detail to pop in). Glitchy / poor lighting and shadows (Shadows flickering). Much of the Odyssey terrain looks like clay. Malforming and morphing of terrain features as you close distance in super cruise > glide and on planets. Good points on some of the ice / frost textures when and if they load over the clay.
Horizons is polished well optimized smooth and the lighting works. Features from super cruise look exactly like they do as you approach and land. Much more dramatic and varied landscape (Crazy mountains that jut out into space, deep canyons). Well blended colors. Planets that do dry flaky dirt to stone with non of that clay look.
Odyssey has moments where you can see the potential but looks horrible in motion. It looks disjointed and hacked together. I agree with David Braben and the road map it needs "Many fixes and improvements".
I think the crater walls are a bit more natural-feeling than they used to be, possibly because I've been lucky but possibly because there's more believable detail in premade assets. Might check this in the next few days.
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
No offense, but you are wrong. Let me show you a photo. Of Earth.
U6 planet colors are still very, very conservative even to what only our planet has. When you then look at what only our solar system has it becomes pretty darn obvious that the galaxy has way, way more outrageous colors to offer than what U6 does.
People need to get the idea out of their heads that 'color = cartoonish, boring = realistic'. What makes NMS cartoonish is hopping pineapples on magically floating mountains. 'white and brown landscapes' are not incredibly implausible, in fact that is pretty much what Greenland looks like.
That's what it looks like when you turn colour saturation way up. Or you could go to the official website and see what it really looks like - still multicoloured, but no (or less) photoshopping:
Rainbow Mountain Peru - Official Information Website
Welcome to the official website of Rainbow Mountain Peru, originally known as Vinicunca, found in the Andes Mountains of Peru. Ready to learn more?
www.rainbowmountainperu.com
And other outlets have decided it needs a "what it really looks like" post:
Instagrammers rave about Peru's 'Rainbow Mountain.' Here's what it really looks like
Melted snow revealed this Peruvian natural wonder just four years ago. Here's what you can expect from a trip.
Can you show me a vid where Horizons looks even remotely as good?
That still looks vastly more varied and colorfour than U6 planets, not sure what your point is.That's what it looks like when you turn colour saturation way up. Or you could go to the official website and see what it really looks like - still multicoloured, but no (or less) photoshopping:
Rainbow Mountain Peru - Official Information Website
Welcome to the official website of Rainbow Mountain Peru, originally known as Vinicunca, found in the Andes Mountains of Peru. Ready to learn more?
And other outlets have decided it needs a "what it really looks like" post:
Instagrammers rave about Peru's 'Rainbow Mountain.' Here's what it really looks like
Melted snow revealed this Peruvian natural wonder just four years ago. Here's what you can expect from a trip.www.cnbc.com
Just pointing out that when making a statement re Earth geology colours, it detracts somewhat from your argument when you use an obviously doctored image.
Edit: Btw, satellite image of rainbow mountain:
Last edited:
Noted. But you do agree that the idea that U6 colours are 'cartoonish' is false and even Earth alone has more varied surface colours?
Or are you just trying to score points from Team Horizons while destracting for any real arguments?
I'll answer both questions, but separately, because the answer to your second question (strangely) is more important...
I think the colours in U6 are fine in everything but the large crater rays. In many instances those look cartoonish. They look painted on, in some cases in starkly contrasting colours that are quite jarring, and FDev have made little (no?) attempt to mimic more sparsely decaying debris scattering toward the edges of the rays. It's basically block painted colour, thus cartoonish. But that's a minor issue in my mind, because it's fixable ( but obviously low priority compared to more pressing issues). So other than that, colours overall get a thumbs up, IMO.
But to answer more fully...
I actually agree with many that Odyssey planets look much better in almost all circumstances. I've taken (and posted) absolutely gorgeous screenshots. Generally speaking, the planets look great. If I were to demonstrate the game to a newcomer, I'd use Odyssey over Horizons with no hesitation.
But looks, and the underlying superficiality of judging Odyssey by looks alone, is not my main issue. My issue, which I know is a minority view and entirely subjective, is that all landable planets use thousands of duplicate terrain tiles. Not only does that repeating terrain completely break my immersion (YMMV), it also means terrain has been homogenised and flattened. Furthermore, this new terrain generation technique, I believe, will mean that I will no longer find planets with the unique and unusual geological characteristics I used to find in Horizons. There will be no outliers like 20 km high mountains, etc. (I won't elaborate. This aspect has been discussed to death by others).
In short, in Horizons, I would explore to find these two things:
1. Unusual stellar/planetary configurations. This is still great in Odyssey, no change from Horizons.
2. Unusual geology. This is the major downfall of Odyssey. In short, a specific biome, if seen on different planets, will basically look the same, and in many cases literally uses the identical pre-fabricated terrain shapes.
Again, this view is entirely subjective based on my play style. I fully accept that many players couldn't give a toss about repeating terrain tiles or homogenisation of the geology. But to me, it wipes out half of what made exploration great in ED.
I don't want to go back to Horizons. I want what Horizons should have evolved into.
And your question highlights a logical fallacy that almost everyone on these threads (including myself) is guilty of - that we should be comparing Odyssey to Horizons. Of course Odyssey will look better than Horizons (in most instances). FDev have had years to work on the new planetary tech, a primary aim being to introduce the fine detail that Horizons, as its precursor, lacked.
People are posting all these screenshots of beautiful Odyssey landscapes with highly detailed hills, escarpments, ridges, etc. (and mostly they really are beautiful), and then saying, "look, of course Odyssey is better!" Well, yes, surely years of work adding the parts Horizons lacks should make it look better.
But getting past superficial looks, what I also see is something quite different. What I see is an expansion that has dumbed down the procgen to such an extent, it's hardly procgen any more. It's more procedural placement of repeating terrain assets, rather than procedural generation of terrain.
The vexing part is, why did they do it this way? The obvious answer is time and money. It was probably the simplest method. But I see nothing in these new biomes that couldn't have been created procedurally, and there are plenty of examples "in the wild" of similar terrain generation. Some of these biomes are very straight forward indeed. Obviously I'm unaware of the limitations of the proprietary, closed source Cobra engine, but I would have thought Odyssey would have been the ideal showcase for FDev to take the lead again in procgen game development. Instead, they've regressed, and we get repeating terrain tiles and homogeneity.
What I would have hoped for in Odyssey planetary tech is for FDev to have used a modified Horizons procgen code base, and then added the fine detail procgen for each new biome. The result - every geological formation unique, and with the necessary chaos introduced to result in sporadic outlier geology like we see right now in Horizons.
So I'd prefer to compare Odyssey to What-Odyssey-Should-Have-Been, not Horizons, and I'm still a little dumbfounded that David Braben could be happy with this dumbing down of the procgen. But it is what it is.
I personally would prefer inferior fidelity with truer procedural planetary generation.I don't want to go back to Horizons. I want what Horizons should have evolved into.
And your question highlights a logical fallacy that almost everyone on these threads (including myself) is guilty of - that we should be comparing Odyssey to Horizons. Of course Odyssey will look better than Horizons (in most instances). FDev have had years to work on the new planetary tech, a primary aim being to introduce the fine detail that Horizons, as its precursor, lacked.
People are posting all these screenshots of beautiful Odyssey landscapes with highly detailed hills, escarpments, ridges, etc. (and mostly they really are beautiful), and then saying, "look, of course Odyssey is better!" Well, yes, surely years of work adding the parts Horizons lacks should make it look better.
But getting past superficial looks, what I also see is something quite different. What I see is an expansion that has dumbed down the procgen to such an extent, it's hardly procgen any more. It's more procedural placement of repeating terrain assets, rather than procedural generation of terrain.
The vexing part is, why did they do it this way? The obvious answer is time and money. It was probably the simplest method. But I see nothing in these new biomes that couldn't have been created procedurally, and there are plenty of examples "in the wild" of similar terrain generation. Some of these biomes are very straight forward indeed. Obviously I'm unaware of the limitations of the proprietary, closed source Cobra engine, but I would have thought Odyssey would have been the ideal showcase for FDev to take the lead again in procgen game development. Instead, they've regressed, and we get repeating terrain tiles and homogeneity.
What I would have hoped for in Odyssey planetary tech is for FDev to have used a modified Horizons procgen code base, and then added the fine detail procgen for each new biome. The result - every geological formation unique, and with the necessary chaos introduced to result in sporadic outlier geology like we see right now in Horizons.
So I'd prefer to compare Odyssey to What-Odyssey-Should-Have-Been, not Horizons, and I'm still a little dumbfounded that David Braben could be happy with this dumbing down of the procgen. But it is what it is.
I just think they should wait until the tech is there to have the very impressive landscapes AND it be unique.
Even if people don't notice the tiling at a surface level (not meant to be a pun) they will notice subconsciously, because they will see the same features over and over which will result in more of a deja vu effect. I'm not talking about small details like repeated scatter rocks or texture tiles, or even craters (because I can forgive repeated craters given how they are always big circles-- so long as they overlap and scale them up and down, and have multiple at different impact angles). What I mean are the large features like a series of ridges or an entire mountain range.
To me it most certainly does take much of the excitement in exploration, because I just know I'm not seeing all that much uniqueness.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
That looks gorgeous and lifelike, detail and LODs are great, even with no colors at all.
I guess it is a great day in the life of Elite when planetary surfaces main "issue" at discussion ends up being anecdotal views on coloration or thereby personal aesthetics preferences
Its irrelevant what other people see. I know what I see. You have my synopsis of them.