So I tried 0.8 with steamvr and must say, it seems to be better then before.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Elite Dangerous: Horizons |OT| Just scratching the surface
- Thread starter Anton Sugar
- Start date
So I tried 0.8 with steamvr and must say, it seems to be better then before.
I see don't see much reason why the Corvette's pitch rate needs to be nerfed, it's pretty shit at combat as it is, and by shit, I mean it's no better than the Conda, or worse even because of the lack of anything good to put on those huge hardpoints, and it's supposed to be a heavily-armed military assault ship.
Once we get the huge beams and MCs, I'd say the Corvette is in a pretty good place - it's the most expensive and biggest combat-oriented ship in the game, with the jump range of a handcuffed elephant and needing such a rank, it should excel at combat as opposed to the Conda and the Cutter. Wouldn't you much rather they made the pitch better on the Cutter? Even flying a Conda has the literal turning circle of a sun in SC, if they made them any slower it would take forever for me to do anything. I mean it would make more sense too, wouldn't it, seeing as the Clipper pitches like a cartwheel
why not all of en
Even better than that is THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8xskNQKtW4
I think this just convinced me to go on my first exploration run before the next patch hits.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yep, that was WP19 on the DWE. That mountain was a lot of fun, so many SRV's were destroyed trying to climb it, lol! Obsidian got there late but he was there.
WP20 is a tidally locked red planet very close to it's star, looks like Mars got put into Mercury's orbit.....The fleet is now over 45,000ly's from Sol.
Felix Lighter
Member
Yeah, I'll be rebuying a courier once I get my Oculus. Goddamn that cockpit.
The courier is the one ship that I have to keep coming back to. I've been going back and forth between an Asp, Vulture and messing around with the smaller ships like the MK3's, but the speed and configurability of the courier make it my current favorite all-purpose ship. Plus it's so small, double up on Chaff, keep the weight light and lots of ships will have a very hard time keeping a bead on you.
Dreams-Visions
Member
What kind of savage sells a Courier?? Turn in your Imperial license.
Well yes, the Courier is the best ship in the game.
There's a lack of imagination here. Large military ships should be distinct by their weapons volume, aggressive hardpoint locations and power distributors, SLOW cruising speeds and POWERFUL radar (able to detect incoming threats from at least 2x as far away as small ships)...thus making big ships true flagships for a PvP fleet. They should not be larger fighters with agility similar to or better than ships 1/3 their size (see: Python, Gunship). That's always been a lazy and fundamentally awful design decision. The problem is FDev can't get turrets right, so the balance of ships between small and gigantic remains off. Like, fundamentally flawed. It'd be like having Star Destroyers being able to turn at damn near the pitch rate of B-Wings. That's just not a good look. Also because FDev didn't really imagine the Anaconda as anything more than a halo end-game ship that would take people forever to acquire. That's why it's good at just about everything. They didn't picture a need for anything more.
IMO, all large ships should be as slow as the Cutter to pitch in but far tankier, enabling them to stay in a typical PvP skirmish just about as long as they want to, relying on their offensive output via mostly turrets to deal aoe damage over time while being able to line up C4 fixed positions on similarly immobile craft (like other large ships). Their tankiness allowing them to spend less time micromanaging power distributors and more time coordinating their wing mates to attack/defend as need be. To that end, the only major threats to them should be other large ships with their huge hardpoints or sustained firepower over a meaningful period of time due to being jumped by 3 or 4 small ships without some sort of escort or some such.
All you have to do after fixing the pitch issues and turrent problems in order to keep the Corvette as the strongest large military ship is to give it the biggest power distributor of the group. Call it a C9 distributor, enabling slightly higher sustained dps and more powerful weapon choices and faster systems (shield) charging capacity. Keep the Conda with a C8 and up the Cutter a C8. The Conda remains stronger offensively than the Cutter because it would have 3x C3 hardpoints it can easily bring to bear where the Cutter relies largely on 2x C3's and 4x C2's. Cutter continues to make up for being the weaker offensive output of the 3 as far as sustained dps goes by having the unique the ability to chase thanks to far superior boost speeds. Both are likely to lose to a Corvette if the Vette can aim it's C4's, which I believe was always the design intent for the Corvette as the premiere combat ship.
FDev continuing to fail to come up with an intelligent, elegant solution to turrets and using pitch as a stop-gap is what is holding big ships back from the style and combat role they should have. Battleships in the ocean bringing heavy firepower as combat speedboats zip around them. Not as slow and rugged as capital ships, but not as fast as nimble as fighter-class ships either. The Cutter was a step in the right direction. Corvette and Conda, not so much.
shiftplusone
Member
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I love everything you said, but this I want to add to. FD has never understood how hardpoints should be laid out on their ships. I said it before in this thread, but if roll and pitch are the fastest axes a ship can rotate on, then the turrets should all be along the sides, with their Z-axes pointing horizontally away from the ship. Essentially, the "broadside" of larger ships should be directly above and below them, such that they can easily roll so their target is directly above or below them and bring all of their turrets to bear at the same time.
It's such a simple solution that it's really fucking irritating that they keep getting it wrong. With hardpoints split top and bottom, larger ships need to roll and pitch to focus fire from all hardpoints, when with hardpoints on the sides they could just roll.
I posted it before, but still.
Me because I'm the smartest said:
All of the hardpoints should be on the side in that red circle, and the same on the opposite side. Wham, now you have 100% overlap of turret firing arcs above and below the ship.
Edit: The destroyers from Homeworld 2 got it right. If something was above or below them they would just roll so all their turrets (top and bottom) could focus fire. It's reversed from Elite, though, because they maneuver completely differently. They yaw faster than they pitch, and don't need to pitch to traverse up and down--imagine this ship is a Federal Corvette on its side and you get the picture better.
Homeworld does everything right said:
frontieruk
Member
Perhaps I spoke to soon, with MS opening up their network restrictions I totally see FD silently joining the universe's together like they did the Mac version, only issue would be Cmdr names
Perhaps I spoke to soon, with MS opening up their network restrictions I totally see FD silently joining the universe's together like they did the Mac version, only issue would be Cmdr names
You mean as in cross platform multiplayer? I kind of doubt it. That could hold back updates to the PC and Mac versions if the console version can't be simply patched to their heart's content.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I like the way you think, Dave!
Also, no ED will never be synchronized with consoles. The patch certification process guarantees it will never happen. Hell, FDev still hasn't even finished Horizons for Mac. They need help over there or something. It's like they're sitting on a gold mine but don't know how to mine it. It pains me.
Also, no ED will never be synchronized with consoles. The patch certification process guarantees it will never happen. Hell, FDev still hasn't even finished Horizons for Mac. They need help over there or something. It's like they're sitting on a gold mine but don't know how to mine it. It pains me.
They have explained why there is no Horizons for Mac and won't be for the foreseeable future. Apparently, the operating system/graphic drivers (?) there don't support "compute shaders".
Unless this changes, Horizons will continue to be unavailable for Mac it seems.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Yep, Mac's aren't getting Horizons for the foreseeable future, and most likely never. They just don't have the graphical horsepower.
They don't? Don't they have more or less standard GPUs? I thought this was much more of a driver/software issue (e.g. if you were to run Windows on a Mac, you could play Horizons)?
Edit: Off topic, but still related being developed by Frontier - Planet Coaster is looking increasingly good! I'm already considering upgrading my preorder to the early bird version. I realized that this may not be just Frontier's obscure second project to transform their studio into an independet self publisher, but it may actually be their game with the most potential by far. Unlike Elite's target audience, which I suspect is centered around males in their thirties with money and time to spare, Planet Coaster ought to reach a much wieder audience. It helps that the animation of the park guests has Pixar-esque qualities.
Hopefully the character models in Elite (once they're added) will have even half as fluent animations and sa much personality. Difficult to achieve, considering Elite is more of a military style universe and Planet Coaster may exaggerate everything in a cartoony manner, but still. ^^ And hopefully Planet Coaster will be successful and secure more funding for both games. ;p
Felix Lighter
Member
From what I have gathered, it's a limitation of the OpenGL api available on OSX. It doesn't support the tech, compute shaders, they are using for planetary landings in Horizons.
APAM NAPAT 4 A RING
From reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ry_time_i_try_to_go_to_bed_earlier_something/
I need to go there, wow!
From reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ry_time_i_try_to_go_to_bed_earlier_something/
I need to go there, wow!
Felix Lighter
Member
You haven't been to the Gaf home system!? Shame on you.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I was using the Interstellar preset before I upgraded my monitor. My 970 couldn't handle 1440p + ED + EDFX @ 60fps so I stopped using it. Will resume using it tomorrow when i get my new PC.
Can I join the group? Do you guys have a page or something?
Pretty sure you just need to show up.
Reckheim
Member
Can I join the group? Do you guys have a page or something?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1105433
There is a thread for it.
But I think they gave a reason why these (ATM) are as big as ships get, they don't want to detatch you from the experience that you're flying a ship, and that you're still in control of these things. I don't want to spend half an hour pitching 90 degrees and taking half a century to dock, that's what the actual capital ships do such as the Farragut and Majestic
Most people don't think it's fun to fly a T9 or Cutter
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
It would certainly be different from flying a smaller ship as it would be more about positioning, systems control and wing organization. I would imagine they'd still keep them maneuverable enough to dock efficiently, though.
Oh! Oh! Better! They go the X Universe route and put larger ships in remote berths outside the station where you can take a personal shuttle to the station proper. I always liked that in X.
Anton Sugar
Member
Via reddit--missiles getting a buff in 2.1:
Interesting. Doesn't seem like enough of a buff, unless they're modifying the damage output too.
Really curious what crafting will be able to do to weapons. Sounds potentially extensive.
Interesting. Doesn't seem like enough of a buff, unless they're modifying the damage output too.
Really curious what crafting will be able to do to weapons. Sounds potentially extensive.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Sure it's possible, it's just difficult. Back at launch after doing a few missions and some trade runs to make some credits I went out exploring in my Sidewinder. I had to watch the moving starfields to find stars and planets then due to my crappy scanner, lol! As you make more money you can upgrade your scanners, then your FSD, and power plant, and so on, followed by buying better ships, and soon you will be exploring fully decked out and like a pro.
Probably the most important two things to upgrade for an explorer are the discovery scanner and the FSD. The top of the line scanner is essential for the most part, and you always want the best FSD you can afford as jump range is crucial.
So what would be the best way to make money so I can actually beginning exploring properly? Just doing missions or bounty hunting?
SymbiantXenos
Member
Just goto comp nav becons and haz res extraction sites. Best money in the game I find. If you're a high rank in PP as well, even more so.
I mean, you can probably dock with a ship much slower and less maneuverable than a Cutter, but how much time would it take?
The Beluga was mentioned for the first time in the game news, and I this is all very fuzzy but I remember something saying it'll be too big for the mailslot too.
I would imagine at the very least, if they do introduce even bigger ships, they'd park outside while drones fly out and repair and restock the ship or something
Felix Lighter
Member
It's likely much cheaper to send a new one then it is to pay someone to troubleshoot and repair a stick especially if a significant portion need to be replaced after the diagnostic anyway. Both of my sticks were replaced and sent back to me pretty much the moment it reached them.
Maybe I should just RMA my X55 and then sell the replacement they give me,then use that money to buy a CH throttle and stick. 3 of the buttons stopped clicking (tactile click, so now instead of clicking when you press them in, they sorta feel squishy now)
Maybe I'll mount my G27 sideways and set it to 180 lock, and use that as the throttle if I can only just afford the stick firs
Yeah, probably the case, especially since MadCatz isn't in the best spot financially.
Either way I am glad to be back on a proper setup. I came up with a working Steam Controller config for Elite, but it doesn't hold a candle to a HOTAS.
Pimpbaa
Member
High end iMacs come with AMD Radeon R9 M380, M390, and M395's. It has nothing to do with graphical horsepower (especially considering people with lesser GPUs can play it just fine on PC). It is because the Mac version uses open gl and Horizon's needs compute shader functionality in order to work. I don't know what the state of the Metal api is on Mac at the moment in regards to compute shaders or if Vulkan is coming to Macs. But it's purely an API issue and not graphic horsepower.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
I only know what FDev has said on the issue, and they stated that they could not get the level of graphics in Horizons to work on Mac's due to their GPU architecture and shaders. It sounded to me like a graphic power issue, but I don't really know the details of it all.
Seems silly to me though that if Mac's DO have the horsepower then why couldn't Horizons come to Macs? If it's an API problem then couldn't that be addressed with software easily enough? Or is the Mac market too small to make that not worthwhile?
The way I understand it, it's Apple's task to provide an OpenGL implementation for OSX (correct me if I'm wrong here?). They do, but it's insufficient, not supporting compute shaders, which Frontier seem to be requiring for Horizon's planets.
Frontier seem to insist both on using OpenGL and compute shaders, which apparently doesn't fly with OSX currently and won't ever, unless Apple decides to do something about it.
Good luck.
Oh hey, new newsletter.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=25a62bba1f&e=915096dff3
Good, good. The current lack of tracks was a bit of a disappointment for me.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=dcbf6b86b4b0c7d1c21b73b1e&id=25a62bba1f&e=915096dff3
And finally in this week's double edition Peek of the Week, we're sure you'll be 'making tracks' while exploring planet surfaces in The Engineers.
Good, good. The current lack of tracks was a bit of a disappointment for me.
Not much to doubt there. It's literally impossible, seeing as the data required to store them could add up to infinity.
Even if storing the data was possible, transferring the data of the paths taken by all previous players moving on a surface to the client of another player moving there could add up to unholy amounts of data. It's simply not realistic.
But it doesn't have to be, as long as players can see the tracks left by SRVs in their own instance, it's already a big improvement compared to how convincing moving around on a dusty surface is currently.
Marking community goals on the map is also a great addition. The good stuff in 2.1 keeps adding up.
** I'll still be miffed if the bookmarks can't be filtered and sorted! ;p
Not that I've heard. I've had mine since alpha, I actually went back to it after my X52 started giving me trouble, it's been solid.
Just join the "waiting for 3.0" club!