This very much so, you can still see massive variations in surface colour on the non land-able planets; particularly the volcanic types.
It would also be great to see more variety in surface scatter, i.e. large rocky outcrops and overhangs etc.
What happened to the graphics / textures?
- Thread starter her3sy
- Start date
This very much so, you can still see massive variations in surface colour on the non land-able planets; particularly the volcanic types.
It would also be great to see more variety in surface scatter, i.e. large rocky outcrops and overhangs etc.
So much this. I just did 6 hour play and planet textures - especially those which you can land on - looks terrific. However, colouring is a bit off due of lack of variety and it is known issue, unwanted regression and we all hope FD will find a way to fix it more permanently in core updates coming after 2.4.
As for some higher texture mode - I am all for it. If it does not require huge work from FD and it is authorable, sure, why not, +1. Moar graphics options, the better.
Last edited:
Realism VS fantasy you speak of? Fact: Stars are NOT yellow! All stars appear white from space because they radiate the full spectrum of colours. The yellowish colour is caused by various particles in our atmosphere. I don't buy this crapping on about realism when they decide to go with pure fantasy where it suites them. There was probably another reason. Most likely just a massive balls up.
True but how much fun would a game be if it simulated you being blinded by the true luminosity of the stars?
I didn't argue that it was or was not a mistake, just that FD are trying to find a combination of features that works; no need to be so apparently aggressive in your responses
At the end of the day it is a pure style choice, some will like it, some won't; other's will just say "ooo pretty" and then carry on shooting things regardless of the colour balance.
verminstar
Banned
Must be a fluke that the game runs better on the xbone than it does on my relic of a pc. Admittedly, the pic itself is an overheating antique which was medium range 7 years ago but it still runs elite...not well though and it almost always crashed me into desktop when fps got demanding.
I've heard players claiming graphics and textures have gotten better, but quite frankly, I'm not seeing it. Looks exactly the same on the console as it did pre 2.4 with the exception of some of the planets that were affected by beigeification...now some are gun metal gray which is arguably even worse looking.
I'm in the black right now and scanning every 5th system...I land on a lotta planets so if something had changed or improved, I would have noticed almost immediately.
I'm not complaining because the game runs flawlessly on the xbone, but then it was running flawlessly before 2.4, so I'm struggling to see what these alleged improvements are.
Placebo effect perhaps...wishful thinking maybe who knows ^
I've heard players claiming graphics and textures have gotten better, but quite frankly, I'm not seeing it. Looks exactly the same on the console as it did pre 2.4 with the exception of some of the planets that were affected by beigeification...now some are gun metal gray which is arguably even worse looking.
I'm in the black right now and scanning every 5th system...I land on a lotta planets so if something had changed or improved, I would have noticed almost immediately.
I'm not complaining because the game runs flawlessly on the xbone, but then it was running flawlessly before 2.4, so I'm struggling to see what these alleged improvements are.
Placebo effect perhaps...wishful thinking maybe who knows ^
Quite possibly. What we need here is some hard science! Or at least some comparative before and after shots
True but how much fun would a game be if it simulated you being blinded by the true luminosity of the stars?
I didn't argue that it was or was not a mistake, just that FD are trying to find a combination of features that works; no need to be so apparently aggressive in your responses
At the end of the day it is a pure style choice, some will like it, some won't; other's will just say "ooo pretty" and then carry on shooting things regardless of the colour balance.
Noted. O'il leave me foitin' words for the 'Goids.
Not just the beigification, I could live with that, the terrain mesh for all the planets is stuck on high/medium, can't understand how anyone is unable to notice the difference unless they have been running graphics settings below ultra. Planet terrain mesh looks like crap now.
LOL. No worries. It's fine to be passionate about it, just seems pointless to bite each other's heads off over semantics.
I would rather work together to identify the exact nature of the things that people want to see change.
On that note, I have just visited Anahit, Styx & Vulcan (In the screen shots) but sadly those planets have complete changed base types since beta.
i.e. Rocky > Ice etc. So it is not possible to make an apples to apples comparison in those cases.
Regarding the asteroid rinds however, I believe the fogging was something that has been discussed on length so I won't rehash it.
EDIT:
Not to disregard your point, but do you have any evidence other than anecdotal?
Last edited:
I don't think the textures have gotten any better in 2.4. We are talking about old screen shots from the early days of Horizons or before. The close-up textures on planets are far superior now to what we had when 2.0 was first released, but again, I doubt your ancient PC can see those, so it's a moot point. The Xbox has had these better texture from when it got horizons, so the xbox users are not seeing anything different either.
I have found that the game runs a bit smoother after 2.4, but you may not notice that on your PC.
No, haven't noticed and I don't believe that's actually true, considering there's more animation and interaction with them.
Evidence, mate I've been playing ED since Alpha, I don't need to provide evidence, it is blatantly obvious that they screwed something up whilst trying to fix places like the Junga crater.
I can name multiple improvements and downgrades since Alpha, pretty much all of them I can live with, why they would downgrade the ultra setting planetary mesh so much is beyond me.
Last edited:
When I get close to a planet now post 2.4 they look more sharp, more defined in their texture, when you get around 20km they start to get blurred again. Pre 2.4 planets was always very blurry more like a ball of cotton
And I run 4K everything on ultra locked to 60FPS.
Optimising doesn't equal better. There are platforms/hardware/speeds to consider. :/
Take a look at the ice asteroids.
FD should decide whether they want to move towards "realistic" or dramatised graphics - e.g. our current ice asteroids or the ones OP posted respectively.
Problem is they're moving towards neither. Beigification aside the graphics just look cheaper, and compounded by the ridiculous lighting found in dark environments.
Ofc I'm never gonna damn the ED graphics as one of its crowning failures. I have my own problems with them but for the most part this is one of those "look at the potential" complaints. It could be literally jaw-dropping.
Look at the surface variety on that planet. Really something else than what we got now...
