Gas clouds / nebula effects in Rebirth?

General discussions about X Rebirth.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

amtie
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed, 23. Jan 08, 19:01
x3tc

Post by amtie » Thu, 16. May 13, 17:44

g1i1ch wrote:To me it would be fun and exciting to have a more realistic depiction of space. But that's just me. You may think it wouldn't be fun and that's fine. It's not as if the egosoft will read my post and completely remove everything.
I don't disagree with you. I just said the reason for most unrealism is because the greater desire for fun > realism. If we have both, then awesome. But not many people can do that (otherwise we'd have a lot more KSPs out there).

I think having a realistic depiction of space, as you say, would be fun, if it's done right. As I suggested in my previous post, KSP with guns. KSP is realistic, with no nebulae or submarines on space rails, etc. So it'd be a pretty good realistic space sim when it comes to combat.

You might be able to make a mod for KSP, adding some form of cannons which can be added to your KSP ships to make them shoot (and, given KSP's physics engine, the mass you shoot should push you back, adding more realism).

Problem is, I have trouble just managing to make a KSP ship just get to Luna, so maneuvering ships to intercept other ships that may be maneuvering to avoid me would be extremely difficult without aids. And, as a result, 'casual' user accessibility will be lower. Still awesome though.

g1i1ch
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri, 9. Mar 12, 07:45

Post by g1i1ch » Thu, 16. May 13, 18:50

Good answer CBJ it's a time vs reward thing. Spend a few weeks on a feature that only a select niche wants when time could be spent on the gameplay more or AI.

I'm a bit confused though, X3 had multiple camera viewpoints like 3rd or nose outside the cockpit. Shouldn't X Rebirth?

I'll be buying XR regardless of the my points because of the gameplay, aesthetics are only skin deep.

@amtie
Ah yeah, pure realism as it is can't be a goal. I remember a good game design quote from someone who's name escapes me. "If gamers wanted realism they'd go outside."

But it could be also argued that at this point in time, realistic space is not something the average person can or will ever experience. The difference is gamers can't just walk outside for this. So in this concept it would be about achieving the experience of space, an experience that you cannot actually have anywhere else.

What would be nice is a middle ground between how much reality makes it annoying and how much makes it feel real. Aesthetics and atmosphere alone can't carry a game, and you shouldn't sacrifice gameplay for them.

It would be nice to have a futuristic space trading/fighting/pirating sim like the X series but with these goals. I'd actually probably use CryEngine. I've got really close to it this last project.

amtie
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed, 23. Jan 08, 19:01
x3tc

Post by amtie » Thu, 16. May 13, 22:55

CryEngine can handle space (non-gravity) stuff?

g1i1ch
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri, 9. Mar 12, 07:45

Post by g1i1ch » Thu, 16. May 13, 23:27

amtie wrote:CryEngine can handle space (non-gravity) stuff?
Of course, just turn off gravity. It has cool gravity objects that can change gravity only within a certain area. So I could play around with centrifugal forced based gravity. Also worth noting, it's the engine used in Star Citizen.

amtie
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed, 23. Jan 08, 19:01
x3tc

Post by amtie » Fri, 17. May 13, 15:07

Oh okay. Cool. I remember now the zero-G portions in the first Crysis game.

User avatar
Zanzubaa
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri, 4. Feb 05, 04:41
x3ap

Post by Zanzubaa » Sat, 18. May 13, 17:39

Yes I have never believed in to much enthesis on realism is 'space games' not unless it is a simulator of some sort.

Almost all of space is very boring that is why it is called space. i am sure you can travel thousands of miles in most of it without even encountering a spec of dust =p

The sectos in X3-AP are also pretty bland, I should say in my opinion. Empty except for space stations, asteroids and 'pictures' of nice things in the background. Planets, nebula etc.

In Rebirth I will be looking for more to explore. Things to discover.

Areas of space which you just cannot venture into until many hours into the game becuase your week ship would get torn appart by intense gravity distorions or something like that.

I am taking this from many games ive played or even tv. Anyone who watches star trek might understand.

You could even take something from zone design in 'world of warcraft'. Zones in that game started off pretty 'samey' but as the game progressed over the years they split the zones up into sub-zones. Seperating parts of zones off with natural barriers etc

It really does make for a much more interesting game play experience.

amtie
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed, 23. Jan 08, 19:01
x3tc

Post by amtie » Sat, 18. May 13, 21:28

Watch those words, Zanzubaa. The realism crowd above might tear your tongue out if you continue on this topic. :P

Night Nord
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 12, 20:09
x4

Post by Night Nord » Sun, 19. May 13, 16:09

Zanzubaa wrote: Almost all of space is very boring that is why it is called space. i am sure you can travel thousands of miles in most of it without even encountering a spec of dust =p
Actually you will encounter "a spec of dust" in a first moment of your movement - vacuum is not exactly vacuum, it's plasma.

But yes - "real" space is boring, but it will has supernovas, radioactive dust/asteroids, asteroid fields, some weird anomalies, ionized gas clouds and some other stuff you may and expect to encounter in any entertaining game.

It's just a matter of scale - in "real" space you do encounter something "fun" each million hours traveled. In a game you have to encounter something "fun" each hour traveled. You can do this by either speeding up things/movement, so you may travel across great distances fast, or you may just scale everything down and place supernovas, gas clouds and a couple of black holes into same system.

First way is a "sci-fi" - you take a more or less realistic picture and augment it with some (scientifically believable) super-movement technology to make it fun. Second way is a "fantazy magic sim".

For instance, all released X-games are sci-fi more or less (from the point of space design) and Freelancer - fantasy magic.

BGrey
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun, 9. Jan 11, 02:58
x4

Post by BGrey » Sun, 19. May 13, 21:05

Night Nord wrote:For instance, all released X-games are sci-fi more or less (from the point of space design) and Freelancer - fantasy magic.
Uh.... they are basically the same. Environments, technologies, flight physics.....

amtie
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed, 23. Jan 08, 19:01
x3tc

Post by amtie » Sun, 19. May 13, 22:37

According to the definitions he used for sci-fi and fantasy magic, they're not. Read his post carefully. Specifically the second to last paragraph (quoted here):
Night Nord wrote:First way is a "sci-fi" - you take a more or less realistic picture and augment it with some (scientifically believable) super-movement technology to make it fun. Second way is a "fantazy magic sim".

BGrey
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun, 9. Jan 11, 02:58
x4

Post by BGrey » Mon, 20. May 13, 04:26

amtie wrote:According to the definitions he used for sci-fi and fantasy magic, they're not. Read his post carefully. Specifically the second to last paragraph (quoted here):
Night Nord wrote:First way is a "sci-fi" - you take a more or less realistic picture and augment it with some (scientifically believable) super-movement technology to make it fun. Second way is a "fantazy magic sim".
It wasn't a question of definition it was a question of why one is scifi and the other fantasy when they are essentially identical in their definition of space as well as the technologies they use.

Night Nord
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 12, 20:09
x4

Post by Night Nord » Mon, 20. May 13, 12:39

BGrey wrote:It wasn't a question of definition it was a question of why one is scifi and the other fantasy when they are essentially identical in their definition of space as well as the technologies they use.
Not exactly, they differ in scale. In sci-fi you can't encounter a "mini black hole" just few kilometers away from an active settlement, as in fantasy game. Instead it will be few million kilometers away (which actually start to make sense), but you'll be given a technology to somehow overcome this distance within adequate time.

X-series are sci-fi because of the gates - it's quite believable that you may find extremely different conditions, such as gas clouds/nebulas just one jump away from "normal space", because the distance between the sectors could be any. But their design tend to be fantasy one - "hidden" things are just few kilometers away from busy traffic lines and nobody notice them - because they don't have any mean to travel fast other then gates, so searching for things far away from gate could be extremely boring.

X:R's new technology (trade lanes/highways) may actually shift design to more sci-fi'ish, as EgoSoft will be able to setup "hidden" entrances not-so-far-away from "normal" highway entry and lead this hidden road to more hidden location or otherwise dangerous and not-fully-operational abandoned highway chain leading to some cool location. Like super powerful space weed complex deep into asteroid field =). Or base pirate station of powerful pirate clan.

Nanook
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 26574
Joined: Thu, 15. May 03, 20:57
x4

Post by Nanook » Mon, 20. May 13, 20:32

BGrey wrote:
amtie wrote:According to the definitions he used for sci-fi and fantasy magic, they're not. Read his post carefully. Specifically the second to last paragraph (quoted here):
Night Nord wrote:First way is a "sci-fi" - you take a more or less realistic picture and augment it with some (scientifically believable) super-movement technology to make it fun. Second way is a "fantazy magic sim".
It wasn't a question of definition it was a question of why one is scifi and the other fantasy when they are essentially identical in their definition of space as well as the technologies they use.
In Sci-Fi, the author(s) try to make it scientifically believable, using futuristic pseudo-scientific jargon along with some current real science, for instance. In fantasy, there's no need for any kind of believable explanation because it's all 'magic'. And that's the fundamental difference. Star Trek is a good example of the former, while Star Wars is basically fantasy in space.
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.

Virtualaughing
Posts: 1781
Joined: Sat, 14. Jun 08, 20:40
x4

Post by Virtualaughing » Wed, 22. May 13, 20:56

amtie wrote:X3's nebula was the worst. Because you could see the starry skybox THROUGH the nebula... That alone screws it up.
Not to mention that where the sun shines on planets entirely covered by gas cloud

X2 and Freelancer is superior so many ways to X3 games.
X to X3 is MENU SUPERIOR!
I think that Egosoft has already developed our doom because Xenon AI will reaches the stars :D

masternerdguy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue, 28. Sep 10, 12:43
x3ap

Post by masternerdguy » Sat, 25. May 13, 10:30

DiabloTigerSix wrote:
elexis wrote:Because there is literally nothing more performance costing than 3d volumetric clouds.
Freelancer had it in 2003. Independence War 2 in 2001. Your point?
Wrong. Freelancer nebula have 3 components.

1. A billboard. This is a 2D image that represents the "outside" or "wall" of the nebula. It is faded out as you cross the horizon.

2. When inside the billboard a generic fog filter effect is applied. This is the primary color of the nebula.

3. When inside the billboard there are random dust cloud and debris sprites that are faded in then faded out as you move through the zone.

Oh yeah and there's some dynamic lighting.

None of this is volumetric. At all. Freelancer actually does a good job at fooling you into thinking you're looking at things that are far more sophisticated than they really are!

Source: I mod freelancer.

Post Reply

Return to “X Rebirth Universe”