As has been posted above, Frontier have acknowledged there is an issue with the ring systems. However we don't know to what extent that is at the moment. For what it's worth here is a comparison shot anyway (using PC shots from CaptainKremmen).
Was graphics quality stealth-nerfed in the last update?
- Thread starter Katkon
- Start date
- Status
As has been posted above, Frontier have acknowledged there is an issue with the ring systems. However we don't know to what extent that is at the moment. For what it's worth here is a comparison shot anyway (using PC shots from CaptainKremmen).
I use that training mission as a benchmark, and noticed and reported the graphical differences during 1.3 beta.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=151079
At above link I have screenshots comparing 1.2 and 1.3 beta 6. I just did the same with 1.3.06 and it looks the same as 1.3 beta 6 so no point attaching it again.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=151079
At above link I have screenshots comparing 1.2 and 1.3 beta 6. I just did the same with 1.3.06 and it looks the same as 1.3 beta 6 so no point attaching it again.
It's not only the dust being reduced; there's an issue (or maybe it's intentionnal) with the asteroids LOD distance - only those in your immediate vicinity are completely rendered.
Flying above a ring has never been so ugly...
Deleted member 38366
D
--- Deleted ---
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm of the opinion that the LOD change is intentional, where as the dust is a glitch (although the quality of the dust has been changed and looks worse which I also think is a deliberate downgrade).
Then again, approaching planets in SC has never been smoother. Optimising a game is not 'insert +5 FPS code here', it often includes a completely rewrite of function X or Y so you get the same results with better performance. Sometimes this doesn't work well at first, or not well for everyone, after which you have to adjust/fix things again. Graphic options in the menu are only a solution when you are satisfied with how it works at the foundation. if you change that, you need to go back a few steps until it works as it should, than you can increase the quality again.
Lets wait with the conspiracy theories and anger until 1.4...
Lets wait with the conspiracy theories and anger until 1.4...
Not for me and others. I never had bad stutter until 1.3, now the game stutters in supercruise and around stations/RES to the point where things get difficult, (hitting asteroids/stations when things 'jump' can be expensive.)
Disabling ED's shader loader actually reduced my stutter but it's still worse than before.
I am well aware of that, that is why all studios have a QA department, whose job is to test all the new features, code changes and bug fixes.
But with FD it feels like customers bought a game to beta-test it...
Or until an "official" explanation for the numerous "graphics were nerfed" arguments...
I had a suspicion that graphics had been downgraded in certain areas but the screenshots here prove that is definitely the case. Has anyone logged it as a bug? Perhaps that will result in a response? I must admit I'm one of those that has a preference for graphics over frame rate - to a point of course.
Last edited:
To both: Yes, it has been logged. And yes, FD has responded that they are aware of the problem and are looking for a fix. They request people who noticed it to report the bug with a full DXDIAG report and such.
Sorry, but it is somewhat silly to read this exact comment on every single pc gaming forum. In pc gaming, a certain percentage of your customers is going to run into trouble, because the possible configurations are nearly infinite and you cannot possibly check all possibilities. If that is unacceptable, that user might do best to get a console. Btw, ED on 1.0 had less bugs, and way less technical issues, than eg. Fallout or Elder Scrolls games have even after they completely stop patching the game. Sure, they are not space games, but I'm sure ED beats the last release from a major space series (X-rebirth) by a pretty wide margin. The older Elite and Wing Commander/Privateer games from the DOS era had their own load of bugs, and noone has any clue about SC yet.
Of course, and I would gladly accept that explanation if FD was to actually communicate about those graphic downgrades.
On the other hand, this is why we have (on PC) much more freedom when it comes to settings; why would FD force such a downgrade for all instead of giving us options settings-wise is beyond me...
But, as you said, it's no use to conjecture; we don't even know if it's a bug or intentionnal tweaking...
EDIT : by the way, I read that some people had significant FPS improvements (related or not to what is being discussed here); though on my end I had to lower my settings to have a somewhat decent framerate...
It adds to my confusion about this whole thing. :/
Last edited:
To me it looks like lightning and reflections changed in 1.2 or 1.3 (I can't really tell when). The game consumes much lesser resources and some of the ugly flickering (in stations, e.g. hangar) was eliminated. But on the other hand, some of the beauty seems to be lost.
I noticed darker cockpits, reduced LOD-range, reduced fog effects and I feel lesser reflective surfaces or a reduces amount of light sources.
I really would prefer this to be set in the graphic options (e.g. like star trek online does), either with sliders (the xb1 sliders could end at high, where PC / Mac gets "extra high", "super high", "ulta" and "mega-ultra") or with detailed settings.
The settings are stored in the GraphicsConfiguration.xml in the FORC-FDEV-xxxxx directory. Does anyone have a original version?
I noticed darker cockpits, reduced LOD-range, reduced fog effects and I feel lesser reflective surfaces or a reduces amount of light sources.
I really would prefer this to be set in the graphic options (e.g. like star trek online does), either with sliders (the xb1 sliders could end at high, where PC / Mac gets "extra high", "super high", "ulta" and "mega-ultra") or with detailed settings.
The settings are stored in the GraphicsConfiguration.xml in the FORC-FDEV-xxxxx directory. Does anyone have a original version?
As far as I know, Frontier have only responded to the issue about the Dust / Fog changes (which I agree certainly seems to be a glitch). They haven't yet commented on the changed LOD on asteroids, the texture drops on ships, the removal of stars on the galaxy map, nor the pop-up of station interiors.
Someone uploaded this the other day. I think it is version 1.2 - I haven't tried it yet though...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1weV_idxh6RbzA2Mkt6SUtZWE0/view?usp=sharing
I'm suprised you haven't had a response Ant seeing as you're such a sponsor of the game. If anyone hasn't watched obsidian ants YouTube series - please check it out. I seem to remember some of the videos featuring in the newsletters!
This is not 'proof' of anything. If you follow the changelog, they stated they reduced the number of objects on the galaxy map by spreading them out. The same stars and sectors are there, you just have to zoom out/around more to see them all. The galaxy map used to move extremely slowly for some players in clusters with really dense stars. For this reason, they were made to look less dense on the map.
As for the other screenshots comparing Xbox to PC, and PC to an older dated PC version, yes those make sense as well. From that image, Xbox is clearly still worse than either PC graphically. The differences between the two PC versions can easily be accounted for by the game being optimized. Anyone remember the huff and puff about RES zones having reduced asteroid count as well? That's part of the optimizing sweep. Never did I say they hadn't changed. I simply gave the most likely reason for the changes based on the information we've been given. There is 'proof' that with these changes, there was and is improvement for a vast majority of players.
Directed at everyone here whining about Xbox/PC crossover: Suddenly the Xbox release is out and you can blame all your problems on it? I find it hard to believe that Xbox and PC are being optimized in the same fashion, especially since the two development teams responsible for that are exactly that. Two separate development teams. Optimizing the PC based on the Xbox? They took the time to develop and tweak it for the PC in the first place, yet they are going to toss that all out just to redo it with Xbox limitations in mind and apply that to PC? That makes absolutely zero sense. Stop crossing your Xbox disapproval over with every little change that occurs in the game. The level of imaturity simply because the game is now on Xbox as well is way over the top. Acting like children who don't want to share your toys. You've been given the same box of legos as them, so stop complaining about what they make with their box. FDev have given their reasoning behind CQC going to Xbox first, and have stated ample times that the two are separate, only connected by being the same universe. They have also stated that more updates will be coming to PC, this year even (and this was going to be the case regardless of Xbox, yet you seem to think otherwise now because..?) Likewise, if you knew anything about the Xbox/PC update services, you would know that it is more likely for PC systems to receive future updates first, as the Xbox Microsoft update software required to patch updates through to Xbox takes a longer amount of time. FDev have direct control over their PC servers, making it more efficient to develop new content on the PC first. When given all these facts, as that seems to be the word everyone enjoys throwing around, you continue to argue more about Xbox taking priority over PC? If that's the case, then there really is no use continuing a conversation like this.
Last edited:
Thank you!
There are some new lines (and functions?) added in the current version for shadow quality, planetary textures, galaxy map and fog.
- Status