Page 17 of 19

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 21 Jul 2021 10:16
by Marud
There was a poll somewhere, I couldn't find it now. There was a poll with 3 points what auditory is hyped about: rings, volumetric discs or fuel. Nobody voted fuel. Literally. Nobody. Sad that I couldn't find it, may be deleted already.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 21 Jul 2021 10:29
by longname
Marud wrote:
There was a poll somewhere, I couldn't find it now. There was a poll with 3 points what auditory is hyped about: rings, volumetric discs or fuel. Nobody voted fuel. Literally. Nobody. Sad that I couldn't find it, may be deleted already.

That was my poll, mate.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=641&p=34058&hilit=volumetric#p34058
1. This was a very small sample size. A different group could have voted different.
2. It's not like implementation of fuel would affect development speed. And besides that, with the direction SE is going, it will be necessary for accurate simulation.
Just to reiterate, your first post came across as very entitled and you act like there is literally no one who wants spaceships to at least be developed into something more usable.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 21 Jul 2021 15:01
by Marud
I also want ships to be something more usable but at the moment they are so bad that some fuel feature can't bring them to playable level in any case. The entire piloting must be rewritten and only after that fuel can come (which is actually a restriction, not an improvement, and we don't even have filling stations in the game). But the nature is just something simple and beautiful. Can authors come and answer about the next step?

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 21 Jul 2021 17:44
by Canleskis
Marud wrote:
I also want ships to be something more usable but at the moment they are so bad that some fuel feature can't bring them to playable level in any case. The entire piloting must be rewritten and only after that fuel can come (which is actually a restriction, not an improvement, and we don't even have filling stations in the game). But the nature is just something simple and beautiful. Can authors come and answer about the next step?

This is off-topic and the conversation should stop here, but you're saying ships are "so bad" without giving a concrete explanation of why you think that is. As of right now there are already great and provide great depths playing around with orbital mechanics. There is nothing bad with ships following real life physics laws of motion, whilst having control over whatever you want your ship to do with a, although complex, complete list of parameters that you need to fly your ship.

Don't expect anyone working on the game to answer you here; their time won't be wasted answering to someone that's just passing by to rant because he thinks he knows what other people want about a more than a decade-old project. People like you come and go very often, seemingly disrespectful of the work being done, so now you could choose to be patient like everyone else and see what Vladimir and the rest of the team have to offer in the coming months, or leave.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 21 Jul 2021 18:36
by jjliang
So all of the ringed planets were redesigned to have more detailed rings, complete with individual fragments buzzing around instead of being flat, paper-thin discs, right? Even the Solar System's giant planets' rings have been updated, not just with Saturn's, but also with Uranus' and Neptune's as well, with the lattermost even being redesigned to now appear more detailed and slightly more visible. On the other hand, we still can't see Jupiter's rings under normal camera settings. I think Jupiter's rings should be redesigned so that at least one of them is now slightly more visible.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 04:34
by longname
Marud wrote:
Source of the post I also want ships to be something more usable but at the moment they are so bad that some fuel feature can't bring them to playable level in any case. The entire piloting must be rewritten and only after that fuel can come (which is actually a restriction, not an improvement, and we don't even have filling stations in the game). But the nature is just something simple and beautiful. Can authors come and answer about the next step?

Ships are mostly functional currently, we just need fuel and radiation for it to be a mostly cohesive experience.

Canleskis wrote:
Source of the post This is off-topic and the conversation should stop here

It is not off topic, but otherwise, you're right.

jjliang wrote:
Source of the post So all of the ringed planets were redesigned to have more detailed rings, complete with individual fragments buzzing around instead of being flat, paper-thin discs, right? Even the Solar System's giant planets' rings have been updated, not just with Saturn's, but also with Uranus' and Neptune's as well, with the lattermost even being redesigned to now appear more detailed and slightly more visible. On the other hand, we still can't see Jupiter's rings under normal camera settings. I think Jupiter's rings should be redesigned so that at least one of them is now slightly more visible.

SpaceEngine is about presenting the solar system in a realistic manner, not pandering to your expectations of how it should appear. I think we've heard enough about how you believe SE's rings are unrealistic - you're completely wrong.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 05:24
by Khorrah
I think this is off topic, but the new update closes at the half of the startup, I checked out on the .log file but I can't find what's wrong.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 06:45
by A-L-E-X
longname wrote:
Marud wrote:
Source of the post  After the release of rings, what is the new big goal? Clouds? Water? Please don't say this is ships' fuel or their temperature stuff, nobody wants that, it's no use.

As someone who enjoys the flight simulator mode, it's only no use to you. You don't choose what everyone else wants. To see ships worked inbetween graphical overhauls would give us something to do in the meanwhile.

Marud wrote:
Source of the post I'd wish that the new big update was improving real planets. So painful to see Earth and Mars that flat and boring. Isn't it the time to reimagine them? I mean add detailed landscapes above the existing map.

The main problem as I see it is generating procedural details on top of mapped planets. If SpaceEngineer got it to work, then you might end up with unrealistic coastlines. At least SpaceEngineer has a more realistic map for Earth cooking up with better, more accurate visuals, although it still won't add small details.

I downloaded the 100 GB worth of ultra HD textures for all the planets for 0990 and I find Mars and Earth landscapes to be pretty good.  We need to accept that we won't get Google Earth level detail and quite frankly we don't need it.  I just love that we can download all the Ultra HD textures in one shot rather than the painful one at a time downloads of 0980.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 06:54
by longname
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post We need to accept that we won't get Google Earth level detail and quite frankly we don't need it.

We can't say what we will or won't get at this time, just look at how far SE came since its conception with fairly basic graphics and no surface generation. It's entirely possible for SE to have details on the order of a few hundred meters, it's just a matter of when.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 07:49
by A-L-E-X
longname wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post We need to accept that we won't get Google Earth level detail and quite frankly we don't need it.

We can't say what we will or won't get at this time, just look at how far SE came since its conception with fairly basic graphics and no surface generation. It's entirely possible for SE to have details on the order of a few hundred meters, it's just a matter of when.

That would be pretty exciting!  I downloaded Khorrah's map of the Hawaiian Islands and I have to say it's fantastic.  It does take up nearly a gig of space all on its own though, so I think we have to put up with a lot of storage space being used as the level of detail increases on a larger scale.  Perhaps one day we could have an online streaming version so that we could stream the extra detail as we need it (when we land in a particular area)?

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 08:31
by Khorrah
A-L-E-X wrote:
longname wrote:
A-L-E-X wrote:
Source of the post We need to accept that we won't get Google Earth level detail and quite frankly we don't need it.

We can't say what we will or won't get at this time, just look at how far SE came since its conception with fairly basic graphics and no surface generation. It's entirely possible for SE to have details on the order of a few hundred meters, it's just a matter of when.

That would be pretty exciting!  I downloaded Khorrah's map of the Hawaiian Islands and I have to say it's fantastic.  It does take up nearly a gig of space all on its own though, so I think we have to put up with a lot of storage space being used as the level of detail increases on a larger scale.  Perhaps one day we could have an online streaming version so that we could stream the extra detail as we need it (when we land in a particular area)?

Can you show me on your simulator? in mine it shows some banding that I think it could be caused by my integrated graphics (I believe it's dying very slow, I have stopped the works on it lol), As I remember, having Earth with the Hawaiian Islands resolution it would take more than 400 close to 500 GB of space ONLY the earth the surface and elevation map, not counting the citylights and clouds I think.

EDIT: Forgot to add, I don´t know the last thing you said but if it is what I thought about you said, it would require an online server to do so... 

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 12:47
by Marud
Canleskis wrote:
This is off-topic and the conversation should stop here

Having read the rest of your haitful text I see that would be nice.
Canleskis wrote:
Don't expect anyone working on the game to answer you here; their time won't be wasted answering to someone

Thanks you decided FOR the author.
Also you toxic speaking here like you are a director. 49 posts. Pf. Pretty much a nobody.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 12:51
by Marud
Actually I don't get how a simple question of mine could start such a toxic thread. I asked the authors, not somebody talking for them. Question was simple as fork, what is the new big goal. Nothing toxic, nothing scary in it. The reaction in the comments is always amazing.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 22 Jul 2021 18:37
by Canleskis
Marud wrote:
Actually I don't get how a simple question of mine could start such a toxic thread. I asked the authors, not somebody talking for them. Question was simple as fork, what is the new big goal. Nothing toxic, nothing scary in it. The reaction in the comments is always amazing.

By saying "Please don't say this is ships' fuel or their temperature stuff, nobody wants that, it's no use", you're being disrespectful of the work being done by the developers, when hours of work have been put into it. THIS is toxic behavior.

Also, Space Engine is more than 10 years old, the goal has always been to improve it and make it the most realistic and accurate it can be. So an idea relatively simple like improving Earth landscapes has most likely been considered before by the developers, don't you think?

It's completely okay to ask what the next big goal is, I also wonder that, but you can't just come here and post to alienate a part of the playerbase, however small it may be, or discredit an incoming feature because you're not interested in it.

Work progress 0.991

Posted: 23 Jul 2021 01:47
by Marud
longname had a poll and zero users voted for fuel.
longname wrote:

I think that is pretty much enough for conclusions. Also I had numerous talks to players, none of them were using ships because they are literally uncontrolable. And also uncollidable and undestructable. That is not some opinion, that is a fact.
And still you saying your word for the developers. I don't know who let you do that. I wasn't asking you, ok? Yoyou have to accept it.