Would you say the Graphics are better or worse than Horizons?

Rendering techniques and materials are modernized so they look more real but Elite's biggest issue is still some of the fundamentals that look so cartoonish that it makes the new stuff stand out like you're entering a completely different game all of a sudden. I've been playing the Alpha now for a while and I still haven't seen a planet surface that looked anywhere near realistic (I'm not even sure if this is the new planet engine?), the places that I've visited look like backgrounds for Pingu animation (not saying that's a bad thing) with rocks that exhibit erosion(?).

Performance is absolutely abysmal at some points with my GPU hitting about 60-80% usage but the GPU memory is constantly at 100% no matter the settings (texture quality, resolution, overall graphics level have no effect on framerate), with the concourse showing at around 20-40fps and the planet surface dipping down to about 16fps (record is 8fps with the new alien plants). I wouldn't mind, but the planet surface just looked cartoony and I couldn't see anything in my view that would hog up 4GB of graphics memory (which is waaay too low for Odyssey, it seems). It feels like there are no lower resolution textures at all in the alpha and it's just blasting everything to the screen at fullsize, like the animated ads and computer screens you see everywhere.

A lot of improvements in graphics, fundamental mechanics and graphical representation of certain things are still really bad and in some cases really stupid (especially when compared to competition).
 
Reading through this it seems that along with graphic comparrisons, there is also a slew of responses about performance disparity between Horizons and Odyssey. FD really need to look into the performance issue and some sort of dynamic graphic quality settings because of this. I referenced this in this post because i dont want to have to manually switch between graphic settings everytime i go from 'Horizons' to 'Odyssey' play
 
I still haven't seen a planet surface that looked anywhere near realistic
First 'realistic' has to be defined, I suppose...
What is your opinion of the one below?
HighResScreenShot_2021-04-16_14-33-15.jpg

... and the screenshot thread has some quite amazing vistas too...
 
My dated graphics card cannot cope with Odyssey Alpha, while it has no problems running Horizons.

Performance on planets and in stations is abysmal, textures are dull and liveless, see my screenshots here.
 
First 'realistic' has to be defined, I suppose...
What is your opinion of the one below?
View attachment 222047
... and the screenshot thread has some quite amazing vistas too...

Graphically, it looks like a screenshot from game that's 10-15+ years old.

Scientifically, it's all over the place
  • relationship with the light and the dark, the stars should not be visible at all with this exposure
  • the rocks that are rounded; this is not inaccurate, but smooth objects are usually fragments from an asteroid or a comet - the planet has no atmosphere so there's not much erosion going on and almost all the surface that you will find is the hard rock surface covered in dust with sharp fragments of either exposed rock or fragments from impacts. On an icy planet, the surface would probably be much more interesting and more difficult to get around in.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, there's nothing amazing in that screenshot, other than the fact that we finally get to move around with our legs, which I love, personally.
 
  • the rocks that are rounded; this is not inaccurate, but smooth objects are usually fragments from an asteroid or a comet - the planet has no atmosphere so there's not much erosion going on and almost all the surface that you will find is the hard rock surface covered in dust with sharp fragments of either exposed rock or fragments from impacts.

You do realise these are shots from atmospheric planets, the clue is in the word atmospheric, they have atmospheres! So wind, running water for some planets, they also have dust clouds. You are criticising a picture and you haven't even bothered to understand the conditions under which it was taken.

What do you think of this one?

1619014450214.png
 
other ships in SC being nothing more than a 2d sprite rips me right out of the game. That along with the over saturation on system maps is a huge negative (I do like the UI improvements on the galaxy and system map now that I have gotten used to them)

however everything else seems to look much better.
 
You do realise these are shots from atmospheric planets, the clue is in the word atmospheric, they have atmospheres! So wind, running water for some planets, they also have dust clouds. You are criticising a picture and you haven't even bothered to understand the conditions under which it was taken.
Which is why I never bothered making a response... 🤷‍♂️
 
You do realise these are shots from atmospheric planets, the clue is in the word atmospheric, they have atmospheres! So wind, running water for some planets, they also have dust clouds. You are criticising a picture and you haven't even bothered to understand the conditions under which it was taken.

What do you think of this one?

View attachment 222061

As I said, It's not inaccurate - just in the screenshot the round rocks are moulded by water. Mars' rocks are molded by the dust flying around and if you look closer, you will see that they are actually much sharper than what they appear. And note that the atmosphere compared to Earth or even Mars is more than often only a fraction on the planets that we are able to visit atm.

The actual rock base of Mars
1047ml0046000030306005e01_dxxx.jpg

curiosity_sol_1648.jpg


Shards from an asteroid (most likely) and is about as round as it gets on Mars - on a planet with thicker atmosphere, the erosion would start to kick in >>

Mars_Perseverance_ZR0_0053_0671649422_176ECM_N0032046ZCAM08100_110085J.jpg



But what you really will find the most, is dust.

Ice planets (like pluto) would be interesting to see up close, the ice formations on the surface are something that we can't really imagine, we would have to see them upclose.


The whole point of my argument about the rocks and shapes of the ground in Elite was that it's almost all based on visual things seen on Earth, which don't apply very good to alien planets with much different conditions but make for more "visually acceptable" game assets.

And don't get me started on the potatoes on res sites ...




[EDIT] I was asked if the screenshot looked good, I'm saying no, it looks like crap, because with just few minute alterations in the generator code, it could look like this >>

odyssey_premise.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is a game where vacuum dwelling mollusks propel themselves around with farts. I'm not talking about the players, the actual lifeforms you can find drifting in space clouds. Its very, very weird about what it considers realistic and what it doesn't.
 
I was asked if the screenshot looked good, I'm saying no, it looks like crap, because with just few minute alterations in the generator code, it could look like this >>
Being blunt... If the landscape had looked like yours, I wouldn't have bothered taking a photo... Even if your own is more 'scientifically correct' it isn't 'interesting', if you follow my meaning.
 
Graphically, it looks like a screenshot from game that's 10-15+ years old.
Really? I think you need to have another look at the game that were around at that time. There were a few exceptions though, like Crysis, but to get it to look that great, it made your PC cry.

Scientifically, it's all over the place
relationship with the light and the dark, the stars should not be visible at all with this exposure[/LIST]
How do you know what tech is used in the future, and the stars can certainly be visible.

the rocks that are rounded; this is not inaccurate, but smooth objects are usually fragments from an asteroid or a comet - the planet has no atmosphere so there's not much erosion going on and almost all the surface that you will find is the hard rock surface covered in dust with sharp fragments of either exposed rock or fragments from impacts. On an icy planet, the surface would probably be much more interesting and more difficult to get around in.
Here you are flat out wrong, as it is an atmospheric planet.

From a purely aesthetic point of view, there's nothing amazing in that screenshot, other than the fact that we finally get to move around with our legs, which I love, personally.
It's a relatively okay screen shot. But it does look nice. Nice textures etc, and considering we don't have all the tech in place yet, its looking pretty damn good. Remember this is all procedurally generated, which is the real challange.
 
Odyssey looks VASTLY superior -- I mean it isn't even close, it's night and day. It's like a whole new game. They need to optimize is badly so things will change, but regardless the new style is leagues better.
 
Being blunt... If the landscape had looked like yours, I wouldn't have bothered taking a photo... Even if your own is more 'scientifically correct' it isn't 'interesting', if you follow my meaning.
taste. the first is just like one of those artificial postcards, bonsaipanda's quick and dirty i impression i do find actually much more interesting and believable.

but it's down to taste. many variations of that screenshot have been shown, it's the standard selfie, i guess people like the mauve tint (or that's how most planets are?) and the new sharpness and details, and are hyped by the novelty in general, but to me they look quite ... kitsch? then again i guess it's totally different in vr, wait and see.
 
Really? I think you need to have another look at the game that were around at that time. There were a few exceptions though, like Crysis, but to get it to look that great, it made your PC cry.
In the screenshot above, there is nothing special on it that couldn't be done with an older game engine. You need a 3D mesh, shininess map, shadow map and a bump map and you have a scene like in the screenshot.

How do you know what tech is used in the future, and the stars can certainly be visible.
Something something physics. And no, I don't know what tech is used in the future, I like your imagination.

Here you are flat out wrong, as it is an atmospheric planet.
It is. Just not enough atmosphere to cause proper erosion (the sky is the hint).

It's a relatively okay screen shot. But it does look nice. Nice textures etc, and considering we don't have all the tech in place yet, its looking pretty damn good. Remember this is all procedurally generated, which is the real challange.
Very basic screenshot, but nicely showcasing spacelegs. You can do photorealistic landscapes in today's render engines (including the Cobra) that look exactly like the real thing. It doesn't matter if you do it in pre-made assets or procedurally generate it on the fly.
 
Top Bottom