Funny that, it is only one of the games I play too, how nice to have something in common!
Which one Looks More Realistic to You?
- Thread starter Pigletslastand
- Start date
Indeed, the horizon will be of less quality, because non landable planet are lower quality than landable ones (since you usually don't get as close).
So, if anything, it works in favor of the odyssey planet.
I'm a negative nancy when it comes to Odysseys release:
The lighting is still borked (even tho' supposedly fixed according to the bug tracker)
The star crater used to stamp too many planets I now loathe the sight of
Mars has the largest mountain and deepest canyon in the solar system and it's a big planet with an atmosphere denser than anything we can land on ingame so blaming gravity for the flatter planets seems like a bad call
The repeating rocks and plants looks like they made 20 variations of each and called it a day
But...
I'm flying to Colonia along that route and pretty much picking plant planets (made 20 million on plants alone at Amundsen port<?>
) only as geo sites still only drop grade 1 mats (4 months after release) and aside from the starfish crater stamp (1 of) and a couple of noticeably repeating surface tiles I'm of the opinion the planets do look better and will get 'way better' when (if?) they fix the issues.I spent a fun 3 hours driving over mad mountainous terrain looking for a particularly shy plant (and maybe that's a part of why I think planets are better as there's more to do on them, not just visit settlements to fight or ports to trade / mission / passenger).
I still want on foot VR, clouds, rain and bridge internals / proper armstrong moments (and wish for player trading to kill the grind) - and I'm impatient to get them but where Fdev are concerned, we can either play, wait and hope to get this stuff before the sun goes nova or walk away for a year or so.
o7
Interesting how the middle one has more scale variations thus making it more interesting and more realistic. Is that a heart in white?
hth
Well, you say "lower quality", but let's be honest here, all the non-landable Horizons planets have the same impressive looking deep atmospheric effects, being fake, whereas th newly landable thin atmos planets in EDO have ... thin atmospheres.
Apples oranges and partridges.
Might be because it's a real (colour enhanced i think) shot of Pluto.
Both in EDO and Horizon non landable world are more basic in texturing and variety, at least for non EWL. You're not supposed to see many of them from up close.
I don't think they were even changed in Odyssey. They still look relatively poor. Which is not a complaint, I understand why they did that, and I'm OK with it.
Almost spot on - it is one of Nasa true colour images of Pluto. I.e. what the eye would see if we could see it. Someone asked how they could determine which was more realistic - so I found a real planetoid of similar dimensions and put them side by side.
As many commentators have pointed out though, it's apples and pears. Might be nice to do a comparison against a non-atmospheric landable in both for a better attempt. I have completely abandoned Horizons so am not in a position to do it.
It's the same reason they do low-res cockpits for landed ships. People are not supposed to see it that close up to notice. Pre-Update 6 though it was possible to slip inside and have looksee...
It doesn't.
Or
?