Whys the beta look better than the released game? Where all these graphics go!

RipperJack · Feb 25, 2015

Realism or whatever, get out, it looked beautiful in beta! The lense flare, the bloom from trails, the explosions, the over-exaggerated lighting effects.

i mean look at it!

[video=youtube;KqbFfxRArhE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqbFfxRArhE[/video]

[video=youtube;xNJ-NOb5Mp4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNJ-NOb5Mp4[/video]

]
...whys...sorry why does...relased* -_- i hate my phone, can a mod fix the thread title if possible?

Devil's Refugee · Feb 25, 2015

I was looking at a few of the combat demos during the Alpha phase and it looked a damned sight more 'dangerous' than the release version too. Seems what we've gained we've also lost in equal if not greater measure.

jao · Feb 25, 2015

I thought, there would be some screenshots or videos, that you made on your own. So one could compare them.
Do you know the graphics settings and the tech spec of the PCs that where used to make the videos. Can you compare them?

Top Cat · Feb 25, 2015

If the top one is beta, why doesnt it have the beta watermark in the bottom left hand corner of the screen?

specialsymbol · Feb 25, 2015

I guess now it simply runs on more machines. During Beta you could tell people who couldn't run it that it's still beta, not optimized and their rig not powerful enough to run it unoptimized, now since it's finished this is not possible anymore.

Rubbernuke · Feb 25, 2015

Lensflare was JJ overload in early testing-never again! But I do think certain things need to be exaggerated (like black hole lensing). Overall I like where its all gone from Alpha.

Titus Balls · Feb 25, 2015

There is something of the epicness of this game that was lost in the transition from Beta 1 to Beta 2, then through to Gamma.

Part of it of course was due to optimisation and making sure the game worked well on lower end machines, but on the upper end there are still a lot of issues such as popup and texture loading.

I think part of it was also back then it was raw and gritty and FELT like Elite, but now they've polished it up and it feels more slick. And that's a shame.

RipperJack · Feb 25, 2015

jao said:
I thought, there would be some screenshots or videos, that you made on your own. So one could compare them.
Do you know the graphics settings and the tech spec of the PCs that where used to make the videos. Can you compare them?

Sorry for me it was painfully obvious the graphical difference. Like they just instantly hit me with the bloom and the lense flaring. If you need a comparison shoot something down ingame and then watch that video again. Tech specc's are irrelevant, beta has alot more graphical effects that arnt in the release.

Top Cat said:
If the top one is beta, why doesnt it have the beta watermark in the bottom left hand corner of the screen?

no idea, i just stumbled across this video and it looked like a different game.

woodhouse · Feb 25, 2015

Titus Balls said:
There is something of the epicness of this game that was lost in the transition from Beta 1 to Beta 2, then through to Gamma.

Part of it of course was due to optimisation and making sure the game worked well on lower end machines, but on the upper end there are still a lot of issues such as popup and texture loading.

I think part of it was also back then it was raw and gritty and FELT like Elite, but now they've polished it up and it feels more slick. And that's a shame.

I have the feeling a lot of quality was reduced in an effort to reduce stutter, but since the stutter is still there, can be safely reverted to the old high-quality settings.

Vasious · Feb 25, 2015

Top Cat said:
If the top one is beta, why doesnt it have the beta watermark in the bottom left hand corner of the screen?

Cropped video I guess, the menu style certainly gives away the version

CMDR i Tetsuo · Feb 25, 2015

One of the major downsides of PC gaming, having to make a game run well on multiple specced rigs compared to targeting and maximising for a single setup.

Zplintz · Feb 25, 2015

so those two vids were on an identical machine with exact same g settings?

Need to do the same for release to compare.

I prefer the graphics I see in game now to beta and I hates lens flare already.

The lighting on those vids is very flat imo

OnePercent · Feb 25, 2015

When Alpha and Beta was up the player base was significantly smaller, Which had a higher number of Above average and in some cases, Absolute beasts of PC's, So they had the ability to make the game look at a higher fidelity.

Before the release, FD dropped the optimisation bomb, Plus everything is a bit more Darker in cockpits so you generally don't see the same detail.

I still find release better looking than Beta. However the sounds in Alpha/beta actually sounded more crisp.

Masoboshi · Feb 25, 2015

Top Cat said:
If the top one is beta, why doesnt it have the beta watermark in the bottom left hand corner of the screen?

In fact, there is a watermark, saying "Premium Beta 1.00", which is in the top left corner (on my machine the Youtube overlay "Ralfie's Alley..." is covering it).

Deyu · Feb 25, 2015

CMDR i Tetsuo said:
One of the major downsides of PC gaming, having to make a game run well on multiple specced rigs compared to targeting and maximising for a single setup.

Are you serious? That's the advantage of PC Gaming. Having multiple real graphics options that you can mess up with. Console users get stuck with the same quality. PC users have versatility. Low-end PC? No problem, tweak the options. High-end PC? Same. The problem here is not that FD have somewhat downgraded (some thing look worse, some better) the graphics quality. The problem is the fact that those who have better rigs don't have the tools to maximize their performance and quality. Although, I must admit FD seem to have listened and have added more graphical options in the menu. I hope they continue to do that. The advantage of PC Gaming is having multiple options for those multiple specced rigs. I'm sorry, but FD were lazy on this.

SlickReed · Feb 25, 2015

Wow, never even noticed this. WHAT HAPPEN? I think FD adjusted the graphics for older hardware PC for a more stable final build.

Junky Juke · Feb 25, 2015

Seriously.. are you guys complaining also about OPTIMIZED stuff? Omg...

RipperJack · Feb 25, 2015

Junky Juke said:
Seriously.. are you guys complaining also about OPTIMIZED stuff? Omg...

Apart from you digging this up from like 3 pages in

Optimization is keeping the same fidelity while improving performance. Like others have said, i get making the devs reducing the graphics to run on weaker systems but why remove parts completely? Why not leave these in for the ultra options or as effects on the menus you can turn off and on? The videos show they were in the game already and people were playing them with good performance. I'd love my game to look like that now.

Monk · Feb 25, 2015

I wonder how many things they had to turn off tune down in order to allow smoothish gameplay with all the debugging/logging tools that are running.

I remember that at one point, the planet stutter was due to some logging scripts that were running in Beta. I've also seen several responses from devs regarding enabling logging to monitor such and such.

CMDR i Tetsuo · Feb 25, 2015

Deyu said:
Are you serious? That's the advantage of PC Gaming. Having multiple real graphics options that you can mess up with. Console users get stuck with the same quality. PC users have versatility. Low-end PC? No problem, tweak the options. High-end PC? Same. The problem here is not that FD have somewhat downgraded (some thing look worse, some better) the graphics quality. The problem is the fact that those who have better rigs don't have the tools to maximize their performance and quality. Although, I must admit FD seem to have listened and have added more graphical options in the menu. I hope they continue to do that. The advantage of PC Gaming is having multiple options for those multiple specced rigs. I'm sorry, but FD were lazy on this.

-
You mis-understand, it's a plus for the consumer, more choice, more customisation, better price competition, but for a designer/programmer it is a massive headache. It's the same reason you get "better" apps on iOS than you do on Android because it's such a ball-ache to make sure your design stays compatible with every setup, but the other side of the coin is more choice on the android side because the environment is less walled in.
-
Another area it is a pain in the ass is bug finding/fixing. How many bugs do you think are made harder for ED to fix when they can't recreate them with the sample hardware they use? If it was on a console the same bug happens the same way for everyone whereas in PC development it could be any one thing or a mixture of several.