What happened to the graphics / textures?
- Thread starter her3sy
- Start date
By and large, texture quality hasn't been reduced, object geometry and the density of objects have.
You can also set your texture quality to arbitrarily high levels in the config files and see improvements to 8K textures (vs the 2-2.5K res textures in the default ultra settings), at the very least.
It looks like a nice painting but not realistic, which was the point
Fair enough.It looks like a nice painting but not realistic, which was the point
How about this then:
Can you please detail how I can manually setup the config files to be higher that that set under ultra?
The texture improvement is only for the galaxy background and non landable planets. Google 4K tweak Elite dangerous
Bear in mind that the planets at the time were just sci-fi art. I believe that the current surfaces are supposed to take into account composition, etc.
Again, I am not trying to argue against you personally; just asking that you as the person making that statement take up the burden of proof.
Too many of these threads go off without providing any concrete examples of what has changed and what people would like to see.
That's all I am asking, let's just pick one thing to talk about and then we can discuss the pros/cons.
Here is an example of it done right. I should clarify, that SOME mods on Skyrim over saturate...
Last edited:
I'm totally in support of the sci-fi art look. It's much more appealing in my view.
NecoMachina
N
So, we can't have nice looking planets because realism, but it's OK to ignore the realism when it comes to stars? Come on man. Sometimes it feels like people will pick whatever random reasoning works best for defending the game and FDEV. If the excuses contradict each other, so be it - at least we don't have to admit the flaws, right?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.
Last edited:
That's an original planet!!???
How beautiful.. Today the galaxy is only filled with planetary sized oranges.. :|
Yeah, there is no doubt that texture quality and LOD have gotten better, especially up close. The huge problem is that on a macro scale the planets have become boring looking due to the beigefication and terrain normalization of 2.2. The end result IMHO is that planets look much worse today than they used to, despite the better texture quality.
Oh come on Kerrash, we've had dozens of threads about this over the past year. The most recent beige thread is 153 pages long and chock full of before 2.2 and after 2.2 shots showing both the terrain normalization and beigeficaiton. How many times do we need to post the evidence?
Seriously, I'm just going to make a Beigefication OT and fill it with all of the evidence, screesnshots, information and Frontier dev posts, so that every time someone posts a question like this I can just post a link instead of repeat the same things over and over and over again....
Last edited:
The Pleiades Nebula has seen a dramatic improvement, in my opinion, but I have no previous images to prove it.
Some elements have been simplified such as the asteroids. There have also been lighting changes in the stations, although I tend to think the current stations look better not worse and with a lot more variety.
Why do I have to give you proof? The devs are fully aware they changed the planet mesh, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who plays ED in ultra.
Oh come on, that's a Bob Ross painting, look at all the happy little trees.
NecoMachina
N
Don't bother. As soon as you present actual evidence, they'll vanish and no longer want to discuss the topic. They'll deny the problem exists, use self-conflicting reasoning on why it has to be the way it is, or whatever they have to do to defend the game and FDEV. Until you present evidence so clear that they can't deny it - then they'll mysteriously vanish.
Ok, perhaps everyone is misunderstanding me when I say 'evidence' let me put it another way.
If you are going to say "It's bad, fix it" nothing will progress, not the conversation or the game.
Things could move on if people were to pick one single thing and highlight the particular problem and perhaps provide suggestions and examples to backup the point.
I get tired of saying it, but can people stop jumping to the 'defending' FD excuse every time someone tries to open a dialog?
This is not about myself or anyone else admitting the game has flaws, this is about what has changed, why and what we would like to see done about it.
EDIT: To be even more clear, the statements in the OP are too vague to address:
"What happened to the graphics / textures?" & "It's very dull at the moment"
FD cannot answer questions which are basically just a personal subjection observation.
If the OP was to ask, "Why has the ice-teroid rendering changed" FD might be able to answer that.
Last edited:
It's pretty safe to say this isn't a new topic. What I think others are trying to say is that we've already raised multiple threads to say what has changed and what we'd like done about it. In fact I think "multiple" is a drastic understatement in this context, with some very reasoned and constructive information and arguments made, and less than nothing in terms of helpful feedback from FD on the topic.
How many times should one make constructive arguments ad nauseum before you get bored and become visibly ticked off?
Last edited: