acknowledge by devs but very low on the list to fix, some sectors with fog have normal sun some not so it will eventually be doneImperial Good wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 10:27Likely limited by performance. Higher resolution buffers for those effects would drastically increase GPU time usage.
Graphic improvements?
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Re: Graphic improvements?
Fixed ships getting spawned away from ship configuration menu at resupply ships from automatically getting deployables.
Re: Graphic improvements?
You do realise DLSS is limited to RTX20/30 GPUs while FSR is not yes?alexdefelice wrote: ↑Wed, 1. Dec 21, 22:54Just checked out the Steam hardware survey results, and you have a point. But have you used it? It's definitely worth it, and easier to implement than ever*. If you've used FSR and DLSS side-by-side, there is simply no comparison. DLSS is lightning-fast and razor sharp, FSR is a gross blurry mess with mixed performance results.
(*for many games, I have no idea what engine X4 uses)
Re: Graphic improvements?
Do both!Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 13:44You do realise DLSS is limited to RTX20/30 GPUs while FSR is not yes?alexdefelice wrote: ↑Wed, 1. Dec 21, 22:54Just checked out the Steam hardware survey results, and you have a point. But have you used it? It's definitely worth it, and easier to implement than ever*. If you've used FSR and DLSS side-by-side, there is simply no comparison. DLSS is lightning-fast and razor sharp, FSR is a gross blurry mess with mixed performance results.
(*for many games, I have no idea what engine X4 uses)
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - D.N.A
Re: Graphic improvements?
Increase shadow render resolution to beyond a few feet in front of you would be nice and softer aa edges as edges kinda look crap in some situations. That or raytraced shadows as a option would be nice. Also please ego hurry and get specular aa ingame to fix shimmering edges as aa doesnt fix em.
- alexdefelice
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Mon, 14. Nov 05, 23:27
Re: Graphic improvements?
Yes I do. You didn't answer my question, have you compared them side by side, in person? YouTube videos with their compression are of very little use here.Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 13:44You do realise DLSS is limited to RTX20/30 GPUs while FSR is not yes?alexdefelice wrote: ↑Wed, 1. Dec 21, 22:54Just checked out the Steam hardware survey results, and you have a point. But have you used it? It's definitely worth it, and easier to implement than ever*. If you've used FSR and DLSS side-by-side, there is simply no comparison. DLSS is lightning-fast and razor sharp, FSR is a gross blurry mess with mixed performance results.
(*for many games, I have no idea what engine X4 uses)
It's like paradise, spread out with a butter knife.
Re: Graphic improvements?
Seriously you do not understand the investment/return ratio. RTX20/30 will not benefit even at 2560x1440 playing X4. The FPS is pretty good if the CPU is good enough (8core 3200C14/3600C16 RAM)alexdefelice wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 19:15Yes I do. You didn't answer my question, have you compared them side by side, in person? YouTube videos with their compression are of very little use here.Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 13:44You do realise DLSS is limited to RTX20/30 GPUs while FSR is not yes?alexdefelice wrote: ↑Wed, 1. Dec 21, 22:54
Just checked out the Steam hardware survey results, and you have a point. But have you used it? It's definitely worth it, and easier to implement than ever*. If you've used FSR and DLSS side-by-side, there is simply no comparison. DLSS is lightning-fast and razor sharp, FSR is a gross blurry mess with mixed performance results.
(*for many games, I have no idea what engine X4 uses)
There are people with GTX900/1000 series playing this game and ofc AMD users that benefit from FSR and not from DLSS.
Also shouldn't forget due to the game engine used, NV cards are 40% faster than their equivalent AMD with X4.
Re: Graphic improvements?
The thing I want, but am unlikely to get since it would probably be really taxing, is an improved lighting model. Really the only thing that I like about Elite Dangerous is that the lighting is so good, I think in part because they rely more heavily on point lights and spotlights than on ambient lighting. X4's lighting makes everything look relatively flat, even with shadows turned on. If there were some way to add "in-universe" lights (including light from the main star) and dial down the overall ambient lighting, I'd be all for it. Though I do understand I'd probably end up watching a slideshow.
Anti-aliasing is nice, but I don't think it's the thing that's keeping X4's visuals from matching the best of other games in the genre. It's not even the quality/complexity of the textures, which are generally pretty good. It's the lighting.
Anti-aliasing is nice, but I don't think it's the thing that's keeping X4's visuals from matching the best of other games in the genre. It's not even the quality/complexity of the textures, which are generally pretty good. It's the lighting.
Let's Play Poorly! - Suboptimal X4 Playthroughs
Re: Graphic improvements?
agreed kmunoz
- alexdefelice
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Mon, 14. Nov 05, 23:27
Re: Graphic improvements?
If you'd used it, and if you play on a 165hz, you'd understand. This is a pointless debate since you haven't actually tried it. And it absolutely makes a difference at 1440p, even with a 3080 and an overlocked 10700k with properly-timed ram. Take Rust for example, or No Man's Sky, it's awesome; so smooth and fluid. But you really have to see it in person to get it. Ultimately the developers will decide whether investment/return is worth it. Only they know what it would take to implement. Might be easy, might be a no-go due to engine complications/time constraints, and (as you pointed out and is proved out via Steam surveys) the relatively small user base.Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 19:59Seriously you do not understand the investment/return ratio. RTX20/30 will not benefit even at 2560x1440 playing X4. The FPS is pretty good if the CPU is good enough (8core 3200C14/3600C16 RAM)alexdefelice wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 19:15Yes I do. You didn't answer my question, have you compared them side by side, in person? YouTube videos with their compression are of very little use here.
There are people with GTX900/1000 series playing this game and ofc AMD users that benefit from FSR and not from DLSS.
Also shouldn't forget due to the game engine used, NV cards are 40% faster than their equivalent AMD with X4.
It's like paradise, spread out with a butter knife.
- alexdefelice
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Mon, 14. Nov 05, 23:27
Re: Graphic improvements?
That would be so awesome if it's feasible.Artean wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 14:42Do both!Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 13:44You do realise DLSS is limited to RTX20/30 GPUs while FSR is not yes?alexdefelice wrote: ↑Wed, 1. Dec 21, 22:54
Just checked out the Steam hardware survey results, and you have a point. But have you used it? It's definitely worth it, and easier to implement than ever*. If you've used FSR and DLSS side-by-side, there is simply no comparison. DLSS is lightning-fast and razor sharp, FSR is a gross blurry mess with mixed performance results.
(*for many games, I have no idea what engine X4 uses)
It's like paradise, spread out with a butter knife.
Re: Graphic improvements?
You fight your own argument. FSR is the best solution considering it can be used by all DX11/Vulkan compatible GPUs, including upcoming Intel GPUs and archaic GTX700/R9 200 series from 2013!alexdefelice wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 21:45If you'd used it, and if you play on a 165hz, you'd understand. This is a pointless debate since you haven't actually tried it. And it absolutely makes a difference at 1440p, even with a 3080 and an overlocked 10700k with properly-timed ram. Take Rust for example, or No Man's Sky, it's awesome; so smooth and fluid. But you really have to see it in person to get it. Ultimately the developers will decide whether investment/return is worth it. Only they know what it would take to implement. Might be easy, might be a no-go due to engine complications/time constraints, and (as you pointed out and is proved out via Steam surveys) the relatively small user base.Panos wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 19:59Seriously you do not understand the investment/return ratio. RTX20/30 will not benefit even at 2560x1440 playing X4. The FPS is pretty good if the CPU is good enough (8core 3200C14/3600C16 RAM)alexdefelice wrote: ↑Thu, 2. Dec 21, 19:15
Yes I do. You didn't answer my question, have you compared them side by side, in person? YouTube videos with their compression are of very little use here.
There are people with GTX900/1000 series playing this game and ofc AMD users that benefit from FSR and not from DLSS.
Also shouldn't forget due to the game engine used, NV cards are 40% faster than their equivalent AMD with X4.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 4750
- Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
Re: Graphic improvements?
DLSS is better if your hardware supports it. Still FSR is very useful for people who cannot run X4 well at native resolution. I am using a GTX 760 and when playing Anno 1800 was surprised to find that FSR not only works on such a GPU but helps to maintain reasonable performance without looking terrible. If X4 had FSR I would immediately use it as performance is quite bad at 1440p on this card. I just hope that it does not mangle game text too much, ideally that should be rendered native while the complex shader output is upscaled.
Visually I think better ship damage would be the next major graphical area to improve. Firing the Asgard at a target and having no visual scars left on it is kind of anticlimactic given how much damage it does. I could see this implemented as a sort of per ship texture set that is drawn on to to represent surface damage, and heat. For example firing plasma cannons at a station would cause the area of impact to glow white/red from the heat while chain bolt guns would leave dents and damage marks where they impact. Something like the Asgard beam could then spread huge heat across the surface as it deals damage and leave massive scar marks around the impact sight. Of course this would only apply after shields are depleted and hull damage is done. Over time these visual effects will fade, and will not be saved or tracked in low attention. In low attention ships would gain hint attributes based on the weapons dealing hull damage to them which is then used to randomly generate impact effects on them so that abruptly entering a sector does not start out with all ships looking brand new when their hulls are critical.
Currently there is some ship damage, but it is usually in the form of some once-off small explosion effects once low hull threshold is reached. You can fire shots at the same area of the ship's hull for minutes and all the way up until the ship explodes (hull 0) you will not see even one scratch to the surface.
Visually I think better ship damage would be the next major graphical area to improve. Firing the Asgard at a target and having no visual scars left on it is kind of anticlimactic given how much damage it does. I could see this implemented as a sort of per ship texture set that is drawn on to to represent surface damage, and heat. For example firing plasma cannons at a station would cause the area of impact to glow white/red from the heat while chain bolt guns would leave dents and damage marks where they impact. Something like the Asgard beam could then spread huge heat across the surface as it deals damage and leave massive scar marks around the impact sight. Of course this would only apply after shields are depleted and hull damage is done. Over time these visual effects will fade, and will not be saved or tracked in low attention. In low attention ships would gain hint attributes based on the weapons dealing hull damage to them which is then used to randomly generate impact effects on them so that abruptly entering a sector does not start out with all ships looking brand new when their hulls are critical.
Currently there is some ship damage, but it is usually in the form of some once-off small explosion effects once low hull threshold is reached. You can fire shots at the same area of the ship's hull for minutes and all the way up until the ship explodes (hull 0) you will not see even one scratch to the surface.
-
- Posts: 552
- Joined: Mon, 4. Jul 05, 20:22
Re: Graphic improvements?
More varied and [much], better player / NPC models would be a start, it would also be nice to ba able to actually see all crew members when using the management screen, not just the captains??
Re: Graphic improvements?
+1 to this thread.
I would really like to see an HD universe backdrop. Some sectors look amazing, while others look very low res. I mean, space is gorgeous, so let some of that beauty shine!
The stars in particular are HUGE in some sectors. It really takes away from the immersion, at least for me.
Hopefully 5.0 gives us some goodies. In the most recent interview, Bernd said it changes a lot. One can hope!
I would really like to see an HD universe backdrop. Some sectors look amazing, while others look very low res. I mean, space is gorgeous, so let some of that beauty shine!
The stars in particular are HUGE in some sectors. It really takes away from the immersion, at least for me.
Hopefully 5.0 gives us some goodies. In the most recent interview, Bernd said it changes a lot. One can hope!
Re: Graphic improvements?
I wrote it in my separate topic, but we need to have paint mods apply to turrets and shield generators as well.
Currently many hull paint mods are looking very bad with default one color turrets and shield generators.
Currently many hull paint mods are looking very bad with default one color turrets and shield generators.
Re: Graphic improvements?
I would like it if this game had decent shadows, since I am still using a weird workaround to get medium ones because the high ones are low-res (for some reason??) and the medium ones get weird flickering in the cockpit when the sun is behind my ship. It's really distracting when something as natural as a shadow is messed up.
***modified***
- Harrison_rus
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue, 27. Nov 18, 21:08
Re: Graphic improvements?
^ This. I thought something about this but dropped because I think that on this devs should spent a lot of time with ~0 profiiiits. (better concentrate on bugs and improvements than just "eye candy") But I want that this happen in some time.Imperial Good wrote: ↑Fri, 3. Dec 21, 11:40.....
Visually I think better ship damage would be the next major graphical area to improve. Firing the Asgard at a target and having no visual scars left on it is kind of anticlimactic given how much damage it does. I could see this implemented as a sort of per ship texture set that is drawn on to to represent surface damage, and heat. For example firing plasma cannons at a station would cause the area of impact to glow white/red from the heat while chain bolt guns would leave dents and damage marks where they impact. Something like the Asgard beam could then spread huge heat across the surface as it deals damage and leave massive scar marks around the impact sight. Of course this would only apply after shields are depleted and hull damage is done. Over time these visual effects will fade, and will not be saved or tracked in low attention. In low attention ships would gain hint attributes based on the weapons dealing hull damage to them which is then used to randomly generate impact effects on them so that abruptly entering a sector does not start out with all ships looking brand new when their hulls are critical.
Currently there is some ship damage, but it is usually in the form of some once-off small explosion effects once low hull threshold is reached. You can fire shots at the same area of the ship's hull for minutes and all the way up until the ship explodes (hull 0) you will not see even one scratch to the surface.
My preferences:
* Better sprite/effect for the highways. It can be same - flat line. But at this time it looks very cheap.
* Gate effects also need improve. When I saw X3 trailers/gameplay it was much better
* It will be good for the very far distance for the shadows. Because stations looks very impressive only with small distance where you can see all loaded shadows. In the far it just bright. (But I suspect that this possible only with ray tracing. I hope that I wrong.)