Gas clouds / nebula effects in Rebirth?
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Posts: 7307
- Joined: Wed, 24. Nov 10, 20:54
All I did was try to get my point accross when it appeared to be getting missed, I tried hard by using emoticons, to get accross I was not angry or having a go at anyone, yet there you go. I give in.
I too was not asking for anything to be removed, just for the OPTION to remove or keep certain features. It can be done so why not? There have been many arguments about the pro's and con's of the fog and cockpits, Egosoft are well aware that they split opinion fairly evenly, from what I have seen. There have been many, many downloads of the no fog mod, as well of the mod that returns cockpits to TC/AP.
Is it really asking too much for the option; for choice?
Obviously so.
100% agree with you g1i1ch.
I too was not asking for anything to be removed, just for the OPTION to remove or keep certain features. It can be done so why not? There have been many arguments about the pro's and con's of the fog and cockpits, Egosoft are well aware that they split opinion fairly evenly, from what I have seen. There have been many, many downloads of the no fog mod, as well of the mod that returns cockpits to TC/AP.
Is it really asking too much for the option; for choice?
Obviously so.
100% agree with you g1i1ch.
Actually yes, it may be. I've explained this before, but I'll do it again with this particular context in mind.greypanther wrote:Is it really asking too much for the option; for choice?
Every time there is a discussion about a particular feature, you have three camps. There's the "I want this" camp, the "I want that" camp, and then you have the people who think they have a magic solution that will make everyone happy, the "make it optional" camp. The trouble is that it's not the magic solution those people think it is.
Creating a game that is fun and enjoyable is about making game design decisions, not dithering about it and ending up leaving the player to decide. While some players have strong opinions about a feature, most will just go with the default setting, and if you have dithered and not designed your game firmly around a core set of solid design decisions, then everyone's experience will be almost certainly be the poorer for it. Of course there are exceptions, particular features such as graphics settings, where giving people options doesn't detract from the game's core design, but for something fundamental like the cockpit it is almost always better to make a decision and accept that it won't please everyone than to dither and give people two different options, neither of which can be fully followed through because you have to take into account the possibility that people may choose the other option.
And that brings me to the second point, which is that making something optional costs more than making a design choice even in the case where one of the options is simply not having that feature. Why? Well, because not only do you have to develop the feature (or in the worst case two different versions of the feature) but you also have to set up the option (additional menus, translations, etc.), and then you have to test the whole game with both options. The more things you make optional, the more different combinations you have to test; up to twice as many combinations, in fact, for each thing you make optional.
It gets even worse if the option is as fundamental as something like the cockpit. Even if the cockpit were just eye-candy, you'd have to make sure that all aspects of the game worked and performed correctly with both a full-screen view of space and a partial view. But of course in this case the cockpit isn't just eye-candy, it's an integral part of the game, with the parts of the UI built into it. Making that optional would require the game to function with two separate interface paradigms, significantly increasing the cost for design, development and testing.
Why should you care about making things optional being an expensive way of doing things? Well, cost and time are pretty much the same thing in development tems, both of which are finite, so those resources would, by definition, be prevented from being used on other game features. Worse still, for any given player, at least some of those resources would be wasted, because they would be spent on an option that they wouldn't be using; in fact in practice for most players, all the effort put into the non-default option would be wasted. In essence you are shooting yourself in the foot somewhat by suggesting that a feature you want should be made optional; you are asking for the available resources to be spent on a feature you don't want, only for you to then switch it off, instead of on features you do want!
And this of course brings us back to the first point, which is that it is almost always better to make design decisions than to try to please everyone by making everything optional.
-
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Sat, 6. Sep 08, 22:00
-
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 12, 19:09
Actually, "fantasy space" has an explanation (but not for X:R though). Space is black and to make a ship visibly invisible you just need to color it black too - it will be really hard to notice him.Fantasy space is overdone. I'm tired of it and I'm tired of seeing it in games I play. As a developer it's also too easy a design now. Any designer can generate nebula for concept art quickly. Everyone already knows how it'll work and feel. There's no challenge to it.
On other side, your ship has a dozen sensors, including spectrometers, radars, cameras for various ranges and other stuff. It's quite reasonable to color otherwise black stuff using this data, just to make it visibly recognizable for pilot.
But as computer can't actually understand if that is a black ship or just space blackness, it will color everything, including nebulas from afar.
It may also color sparse nebula particles creating the "fog" effect.
But as X:R will feature this weird cockpit with glass window, that could not be applied to it. So it's just magic, as always =)
-
- Posts: 7307
- Joined: Wed, 24. Nov 10, 20:54
A good answer CBJ and I am sure all good points, especially considering how far behind schedule, things already are. Thank you for the explanation.
Which only brings me back to my previous point in a previous post, which was ecoed by AkrionXxarr: I do not feel I can buy your game until the modders get a good hold of it. Yes, I know I am in a very small minority, I know Egosoft will live with it.
There is no further discussion to be had here is there, at least for me, so I will leave you to it. I will make my descision about buying the game; when and if; as I see more details. This patricularly in the context of so many space games on the way.
You companies forum remains one of the best, your support too, which is why I still post way too much here. Thank you for a great forum and great games, even if I am considering the next one will need modding, before I am willing to spend precious time on it.
Which only brings me back to my previous point in a previous post, which was ecoed by AkrionXxarr: I do not feel I can buy your game until the modders get a good hold of it. Yes, I know I am in a very small minority, I know Egosoft will live with it.
There is no further discussion to be had here is there, at least for me, so I will leave you to it. I will make my descision about buying the game; when and if; as I see more details. This patricularly in the context of so many space games on the way.
You companies forum remains one of the best, your support too, which is why I still post way too much here. Thank you for a great forum and great games, even if I am considering the next one will need modding, before I am willing to spend precious time on it.
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).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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 12, 19:09
Actually you will encounter "a spec of dust" in a first moment of your movement - vacuum is not exactly vacuum, it's plasma.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
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.
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.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".
-
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Fri, 13. Jan 12, 19:09
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.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.
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.
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.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.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".
Have a great idea for the current or a future game? You can post it in the [L3+] Ideas forum.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
X4 is a journey, not a destination. Have fun on your travels.
-
- Posts: 1939
- Joined: Sat, 14. Jun 08, 20:40
Not to mention that where the sun shines on planets entirely covered by gas cloudamtie wrote:X3's nebula was the worst. Because you could see the starry skybox THROUGH the nebula... That alone screws it up.
X2 and Freelancer is superior so many ways to X3 games.
X to X3 is MENU SUPERIOR!
I think Egosoft has already worked out our doom, because Xenon AI will reach the stars!
I think Egosoft has already worked out our doom, because Xenon AI will reach the stars!
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Tue, 28. Sep 10, 12:43
Wrong. Freelancer nebula have 3 components.DiabloTigerSix wrote:Freelancer had it in 2003. Independence War 2 in 2001. Your point?elexis wrote:Because there is literally nothing more performance costing than 3d volumetric clouds.
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.