One of the things that I'm finding as I'm flipping between Horizons and Qdyssey, is Horizons resets my keybindings to X52 Pro when I login and l have to just select the 'custom' option to get my keybinds back. However, in Odyssey, My on foot keybinds reset to X52-pro and I have to reset that back to Custom as well.
Update 6 Terrain Comparison Thread
- Thread starter BlackMaze
- Start date
But it doesn't do squat at 1080p, and DLSS does. Since I played both CP2077 and The Ascent like that, and the image quality wasn't horrible like with FSR on 1080p. Could be only because we don't have good AA options in Elite, but still. Barely any gains in fps in the most affected areas, and looks horrible. That was my first impression.
Nothing tribal about the fact that DLSS works better for me then FSR, because I don't play at WQHD or 4k, simply because my 2060 is not meant for those resolutions, and currently can't buy a better GPU. And yes, both things are bad, which is why it was an interesting release announcement, that Microsoft is making their own DLSS, that will work with any card, if you use Windows.
But currently, for me FSR is useless, because an increase of 3 fps in exchange for horrible visuals is nothing positive to write about.
EDIT: Also, this is my first nVidia card ever, I was on team red for ages
But I got tired of shoddy drivers and other problems that plagued my last two AMD cards, so I switched.
It is entirely my own fault! I'd set up 'new' bindings to get the camera suite doing more than just basic U.D.L.R. movements, then forgot to save 2 copies.
I'll fire it back up and remember to save when I'm finished (and backup, of course!)
Like Phoneix above said, when I switch back to Horizons it resets my controls when I go to controls > top right new drop down menu > select custom option it puts my controls back. Not sure if you already know but I've pointed it out to a few people struggling with that and it helped.It is entirely my own fault! I'd set up 'new' bindings to get the camera suite doing more than just basic U.D.L.R. movements, then forgot to save 2 copies.
I'll fire it back up and remember to save when I'm finished (and backup, of course!)
I hate to admit, particularly having played for 4 years, that I didn't know this
So my thanks to both of you for putting me back on the 'sane' path!
Oh I wigged out at first and was making a beeline for the forum but then I saw that menu right before I could bring the browser up and was like wth is that lol.I hate to admit, particularly having played for 4 years, that I didn't know this
So my thanks to both of you for putting me back on the 'sane' path!
I've been on the Apollo 15 Expedition these last few weeks.
I've been travelling and exploring in Odyssey and going to the expedition meetups in Horizons.
What I've observed is that when you're actually on the ground (or very close to it), in most cases, Odyssey looks much better than Horizons. Much more variation in local terrain types, terrain that looks like it was forged by natural processes. I've found things that look like U-shaped valleys (results of glaciation), things that look like geological layering etc. I've been to places that are highly evocative, such as one that looked like I was on the salt flats in Utah, and another which due to the lighting and the materials of the planet, was almost entirely monochrome with the only splash of colour being my landed ship. All these looked great. Overall, I found the "on the ground" experience (modulo the bad frame rates) better than in Horizons.
However, what's really jarring is how much better Horizons looks once you climb more than about 1km above the surface in your ship. The topography whether you're looking at it when entering orbital cruise, or at medium altitude (e.g. 3000m) looks so much more convincing in Horizons in most instances. Certainly there are places in Odyssey where it looks nicer when you're at 3000m, but more often than not, the Horizons topography is so much better. In Odyssey, from orbital cruise, you often have a strange sense of deja vu, because the large scale feature you're seeing ahead is exactly the same as the large size feature you saw ahead in another star system, because it was hand made and there are only a few Slartibartfasts but billions of planets. You don't get this sense of deja vu in Horizons. It's not just the large features though, from a few km up, Odyssey often looks a bit like those 1980s height map tech demos people had done on the BBC Micro (only, of course it's now filled in and textured). It looks a lot more artifical and "height mappy" than a lot of Horizons topography.
If only they could have Horizons style topography with Odyssey style views on the ground, it would be excellent.
I've been travelling and exploring in Odyssey and going to the expedition meetups in Horizons.
What I've observed is that when you're actually on the ground (or very close to it), in most cases, Odyssey looks much better than Horizons. Much more variation in local terrain types, terrain that looks like it was forged by natural processes. I've found things that look like U-shaped valleys (results of glaciation), things that look like geological layering etc. I've been to places that are highly evocative, such as one that looked like I was on the salt flats in Utah, and another which due to the lighting and the materials of the planet, was almost entirely monochrome with the only splash of colour being my landed ship. All these looked great. Overall, I found the "on the ground" experience (modulo the bad frame rates) better than in Horizons.
However, what's really jarring is how much better Horizons looks once you climb more than about 1km above the surface in your ship. The topography whether you're looking at it when entering orbital cruise, or at medium altitude (e.g. 3000m) looks so much more convincing in Horizons in most instances. Certainly there are places in Odyssey where it looks nicer when you're at 3000m, but more often than not, the Horizons topography is so much better. In Odyssey, from orbital cruise, you often have a strange sense of deja vu, because the large scale feature you're seeing ahead is exactly the same as the large size feature you saw ahead in another star system, because it was hand made and there are only a few Slartibartfasts but billions of planets. You don't get this sense of deja vu in Horizons. It's not just the large features though, from a few km up, Odyssey often looks a bit like those 1980s height map tech demos people had done on the BBC Micro (only, of course it's now filled in and textured). It looks a lot more artifical and "height mappy" than a lot of Horizons topography.
If only they could have Horizons style topography with Odyssey style views on the ground, it would be excellent.
Last edited:
Yes, I think topography is the problem, and that's tied in to the issue with repeating feature patterns. The only way that will change will be a regeneration of the galaxy which might not be something they want to do again.
I rarely notice the repeats, unless they're mountains, where you (a) see the same thing over and over again and (b) the Y-scaling makes them look very unnatural. I'd hope a fix for this would be just (dangerous word) to add more mountain variations. These sort of scaled elements feel like the work of a coder rather than an artist. But Horizons felt more like something made by code than Odyssey to me. Sadly, I think they might have to regenerate things (in time for console release) if they're going to get this right.
In 90% of cases Odyssey looks massively more natural and interesting to me (apologies for big picture dump!).
The word "form" here rings really true with me. I find it very hard to put into words, or to illustrate with screenshots but, having driven over 75,000 kilometers (0.26ls) in Horizons and completely circumnavigated four separate planets ... I can categorically state that I much prefer Horizons planet tech (in terms of the underlying form that its purely mathematical algorithms were capable of generating as opposed to Odyssey's repetitious cookie-cutter assembly process). I feel almost zero insentive to explore planets in Odyssey for any reason other than to complete bio scans and seek out cool screenshots. As planets that I feel the need to truly explore for the pure joy of following the terrain and finding out what's just around the next corner or over the next horizon (no pun intended) ... it's just not doing it for me, at all.
Last edited:
Fair enough, and I don’t have a critical eye for detail like some here. Let’s hope that FSR get improved with time. Just out of curiosity do you have an amd or nvidia gpu? (mine is a gtx 1080)
I have a 2060, so can make use of DLSS, so ofc I am partial towards it
But I understand that retooling to DX12 just for that would be a major and very costly endeavour for FD. And I stuck to 1080p for now because I really don't fancy making expenses on a 2k monitor at the moment. Especially not for a single game, when everything else works. So I hope that instead we get actual optimizations, not just FSR.P.S. here's a nice example of what I loved about Horizons terrain ... infinitely compelling in its wonderous form and variation and a true masterpiece of procedural generation.
P.S. give it a minute to get over that first rise.
Last edited:
Frontier really must get the planet tech right so that exploring becomes attractive also to the more well informed and ‘critical’: the stellar forge is their main point of difference now compared to other games, and I can only assume they had their good reasons for changing course with planetary tech, because if it doesn’t come off they are up s..t creek without a paddle.
I
f I could use DLSS I certainly would lolI have a 2060, so can make use of DLSS, so ofc I am partial towards it
lol, just look at the last 3... I really have no idea why someone would stay up looking for patterns, while you'll have that a little further down.I rarely notice the repeats, unless they're mountains, where you (a) see the same thing over and over again and (b) the Y-scaling makes them look very unnatural. I'd hope a fix for this would be just (dangerous word) to add more mountain variations. These sort of scaled elements feel like the work of a coder rather than an artist. But Horizons felt more like something made by code than Odyssey to me. Sadly, I think they might have to regenerate things (in time for console release) if they're going to get this right.
In 90% of cases Odyssey looks massively more natural and interesting to me (apologies for big picture dump!).
But yeah, exploring isn't my thing, or at least not anymore.
I honestly have zero idea why they changed it. As I said against the video I just posted, I genuinely feel that Horizons planet tech was an absolute masterpiece of procedural generation. Why couldn't they just apply thin atmospheric sky colouring and lighting effects to the basic form of the terrain that the underlying algorithm generated rather than throwing it away (along with every single surface POI that the exploration community had ever catalogued) and replacing it with a completely new algorithm?
Last edited:
Dr Ross alluded to the reasons in typical fdev mysterious speak, and at the same time almost did a spoiler on some future content. At the time I assumed that we would be getting planets with progressively thicker atmospheres, and that the many layered approach was in some way required for that, but I’m probably barking up the wrong tree.
Dr Ross alluded to the reasons in typical fdev mysterious speak, and at the same time almost did a spoiler on some future content. At the time I assumed that we would be getting planets with progressively thicker atmospheres, and that the many layered approach was in some way required for that, but I’m probably barking up the wrong tree.