Indeed! Please share.
What happened to the graphics / textures?
- Thread starter her3sy
- Start date
Indeed! Please share.
That would be a proper solution. Xbox One X could handle it.
THAT was an ultra detail setting!
Something to be said for realism, although the beige planet plague and topography nerf do seem to have taken it a bit far. Maybe FD needs to entertain the thought that some planets (just like people) are extreme and contrary to the norm.
Last edited:
I don't understand your logic here. Money is money, whether it comes from PC sales or console sales. If anything, making the PC version breathtakingly better (and offering a killer feature like VR) may entice people like myself, who loves the game on PS4, to invest in a gaming PC and purchase the game again.
That said, if Frontier were to purposefully nerf graphics on consoles with this goal in mind, I'd walk away and never look back.
Last edited:
We take a dump on those consoles , as we rightly do so they bring tons of $$ into frontier pockets , so a little of downgrading is a good trade off , i want atleast a 4.0 version of the game.
They will never say, we will never know, but the downgrades are real and they`re ugly, the reason does not really matter. It would not be the first time when frontier said something that was not true though, nor would it be the first time when a game gets downgraded for consoles . (I`m not saying this one is, but that`s my bet).
I distinctively remember Cevat Yerli talking about Crysis 2 development and saying (loose citation) "... but yes if something works on PC but doesn`t work well on consoles, It simply doesn`t go in. We will instead try a different method that looks close enough and works on all platforms if we can" He then went on to explain that console players don`t want to feel left out and that it`s simply easier to maintain the code when you use the same/similar tech for all platforms.
He obviously got a lot of hate for that and Crysis 2 has massively flopped so other devs were less open about that later on
I distinctively remember Cevat Yerli talking about Crysis 2 development and saying (loose citation) "... but yes if something works on PC but doesn`t work well on consoles, It simply doesn`t go in. We will instead try a different method that looks close enough and works on all platforms if we can" He then went on to explain that console players don`t want to feel left out and that it`s simply easier to maintain the code when you use the same/similar tech for all platforms.
He obviously got a lot of hate for that and Crysis 2 has massively flopped so other devs were less open about that later on
Last edited:
I paid $250 USD for my console. I expect to feel left out when I see ED played on a $2,000 gaming PC. I want drool running down my cheek when I watch OA's videos (which it already does to some extent thanks to his high-res, high-quality 60 FPS output).
I'm guessing when Cevat says "console players" he really means "console companies".
Thanks!
Took a lot of fiddling, lol. I don't think the pipeline is unique to my setup but I suppose it may not work unless you're running the same version of ReShade with all the specific modules I'm using?
I've never extracted the .cfg file or whatever it writes the data to, but I can certainly have a look. I know I've had requests in the past. I just have so little time to play the game that I keep forgetting. But I'll make a note to post them in the EDFX / ReShade sub-thread that pops up from time to time. You should check that thread out. It has a lot of contributors posting pipelines and tutorials on how to get stuff setup. I used that thread extensively or else I'd have never figured this stuff out, lol.
Oh, word of warning... it is a performance taxing pipeline. I'm running dozens of modules. I have a high-end factory overclocked 980ti GTX and I get around 30-40 fps. I think with a 1080 this will run silky smooth.
Also i think i'm running a version of ReShade that's one or two behind the current. So a current version of EDFX (Way easier to get up and running) or ReShade might be more performant or have newer effects? I need to check that out.
-EJIRO
Rafe Zetter
Banned
hmmm... ok.
Can anyone swing by Jupiters moon Io and put up a pic of it as rendered by FDev please? Humor me.
Lets see just how much effort FDev have put into this "Correct reality" guff.
As for the icesteroids...... does FDev have access to extreme high resolution pictures taken in space of icesteroids or are they just making this up?
Ice can take many different looks depending on density, how fast or slow it froze and the purity of the water - there are many places on earth where there is a high contrast and saturations of colours between sections of ice on glaciers. Chemistry is chemistry as just as universal as gravity, so the icesteroids WOULD have areas of high contrast.
Unless you can show that the renderings they do now are based on actual reality, then it's all subjective, and frankly "fantasy interpreted graphics" are a lot nicer to look at then "dull interpreted graphics".
I highly doubt FDev would generate many complaints if they used a bit of artistic licence to make the black a little more interesting as it used to be to go and explore for those who've already been out there.
(assuming microsoft lets them)
Rafe Zetter
Banned
I can't rep everyone sorry but yes it was the consoles. Everyone who said that the downgrade of graphics - that suspiciously came before the Xbox release is correct to my mind.
Something that also backs that up is the comment above about how FDev are "slightly incompetent at upgrading their Cobra Engine".... because every single fanboi INCLUDING MaxFactor (who's also sayign this comnsolisation isn't true) said that the "cobra engine is superamazeballs and by far the best tool for creation of content for ED". I paraphrase of course but thats the gist, along with I have no clue what I'm talking about.
So if Max, Zambrick and all his buddies think the Cobra engine can do no wrong, then it must be doing what FDev told it to.
Which also explains why it's been what almost 2 years and no fixes for this.. not even a little one.
Either that or someone royally fked up the code, they've lost the original code and no-one knows HOW to fix it, which even I have a hard time beleiving.
Max Factor - you've quoted that Xbox and PC games look different side by side - prove it. Show me the stark differences between a game running on a £250 console and a game running on a PC whereby the GPU CARD ALONE costs that.
Are you running ED on a 10yr old computer? Believe me I'm p'd off about the downgrades, however running everything on ultra with my I7 7700K and 1080TI is definitely leaps ahead of what I see on my Xbox version of the game.
Last edited:
Thanks!
I don't think the pipeline is unique to my setup but I suppose it may not work unless you're running the same version of ReShade with all the specific modules I'm using?
I've never extracted the .cfg file or whatever it writes the data to, but I can certainly have a look. I know I've had requests in the past. I just have so little time to play the game that I keep forgetting. But I'll make a note to post them in the EDFX / ReShade sub-thread that pops up from time to time. You should check that thread out. It has a lot of contributors posting pipelines and tutorials on how to get stuff setup. I used that thread extensively or else I'd have never figured this stuff out, lol.
Oh, word of warning... it is a performance taxing pipeline. I'm running dozens of modules. I have a high-end factory overclocked 980ti GTX and I get around 30-40 fps. I think with a 1080 this will run silky smooth.
Also i think i'm running a version of ReShade that's one or two behind the current. So a current version of EDFX (Way easier to get up and running) or ReShade might be more performant or have newer effects? I need to check that out.
-EJIRO
I haven't really messed with Reshade before, but thanks for the info!
Will check that thread.
I have my planet textures set to 16k, I have most other textures between 2k and 4K except envmap (reflections) which are at 1k. I also tweaked the galactic core color spread a bit to make it more blue while also a little brighter. I'm flying around at 4K res and taking Alt-F10s that look completely amazing.
I'd be happy to know how you blue'd the core, cause I hate that warm feeling in the Galaxy! I'd also add to this thread.
That actually is the old service economy station, the rare fancy ones from before the new interiors. What I noticed that half of those screenshots don't seem to be from actual landable planets, at least they didn't feel llike. There was a change in textures from the 2.0 beta, yes, and I would like to see it come back as an option if applicable. If people won't overflow the forum with complaints afterwards that it runs like molasses on their rig. Because the visuals were paired with horrendous frame rate in the first two betas.
That thread got me started, but I’ll post my config settings when I get home. It’s a combination of changes though, you can change a setting that makes it more blue but it radically increases the brightness, but there is another setting to lower the brightness. I found a happy medium but there’s room to play with it.
I tried to upload some pics to imgur but at over 300mb per pic it’s clear I’ll have to edit them first.
Actually I find many of your screenshot images inferior to the current stages. For example, the planet with zillion craters, looks totally artificial. Now it's much more "natural".