It’s been a long time ago that i tried it, so maybe it changed.
But from what I remember Outerra is very slow.
I totally agree with you that terrain generation isn’t a USP of the I-Novae engine.
I think @TheCoach’s “bigger KSP planets” comment may have been a response to the lighting, which as I said earlier in the thread, the I-Novae engine does really well.
INE’s dynamic exposure really makes the planets feel part of the environment. - As you get closer to them, the backdrop of space turns more and more inky black. I think this is the main contrast with Elite’s planets, apart from the atmospheres of course.
You can read more here: http://inovaekeith.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/hdr-sexiness.html
1 Like
Yeah, the quality of shaders even disregarding atmoshperes is not really even comparable.
Wonky shaders is what makes planets looks very unity-esque(sometimes they even look plastic or paper or just plain old photoshopped into the scene) and thus kerbal-esque.
These sort of shader issues are not limited to just planets in Elite, space in this game has always looked kind of wonky.
Hopefully they’ll work it out eventually as now it removes a lot of impact from planets being on scene.
Well, it’s only just been released. They’ll probably improve it, I assume. Watching a Scott Manley vid, there seem to be various bugs with planets.
They announced active volcanism for the Horizons season and DB mentioned that “subsurface scattering” was missing on the ice planets. I do hope they improve on it. 
1 Like
Hell yeah, I just flew 90Ly to buy my first ship (Imperial Eagle). Let’s get started and play a little bit E:D until I:B comes out. 
2 Likes
I’d rather recommend that you take an Adder, as it is more sturdy than the Eagle which goes quickly down once its shield is down and the former can make a good interceptor as well.
Nah, Eagle is a good choice, Imperial one is a bit better than the stock one. You can fly circles around anything in an Eagle, once the shields are down, fly away, pretty easy to do, come back once the shields are back up.
I love the Eagle and its model so much. It’s sadly the reason I am very disappointed with Elite. The fact that my tiny maneuverable ship is slower than a bigger more expensive ship which making every ship completely obsolete after you upgrade. The only reason not to use a Fer De Lance if you pvp is because you can’t afford it or you want to make it harder for yourself. So frustrating because I love both the Eagle and the Imp courier(which is a bit better statwise) but they don’t stand a chance in pvp. I can’t even run away because the Imp cruiser and FDL are the fastest ships in the game. It’s backwards in my opinion.
I really would have enjoyed elite more if its ship balancing wasn’t atrocious.
You have so far enjoyed Elite a lot more than me if you own a Fer De Lance. 
I don’t! 
I only have an Imperial Courier, a Vulture, and a Cobra. I might’ve sold the cobra to buy the courier but I can’t remember.
All I wanted to do was pvp but I didn’t stand a chance because if I picked a fight or got picked on I couldn’t even run(which is a staple of pvp in my book. I have no shame )
1 Like
There are classes of ships, you need to know your ship’s limits. Eagle will take on a Viper or maybe a Drop Ship a bad ASP too, you can’t push it to a Fer De Lance though, for the amount of cash the big ships cost, they might as well have magic classified tech on them.
52mil - Fer De Lance
2.5mil - Imperial Currier
44k - Eagle
I have had a lot of fun in my Eagle watching the other ships try to turn while i run circles around them.
I know I know. I just come from Eve where ships aren’t necessarily balanced by cost, but by how you fly them and what their use is.
The difference is that, while I may want a battleship in Eve, it’s not fit for every engagement. In Elite, why fly anything other than a FDL once I have it?
That’s why I bought a cobra after I had a vulture because it’s fun to be fast and I wanted to practice aiming with railguns 
…which is another gripe I have because I feel they are horribly broken. 30 shots is blah.
Here’s a hypothetical annoying example. Say I had a few people, 5 or so, and we are pretty good pilots. We feel like doing something silly so we all hop on eagles and want to try and take down a larger target. We should be able to defeat just about any ship regardless of cost 5v1. Can we kill an FDL or a imp cruiser? No because they are way faster than the most maneuverable ship in the game… Compared to Eve this would be possible and you should definitely be able to kill a cruiser or bc with 5 frigs or 5 cruisers respectively.
Rail-guns puncture through the whole ship in ED iirc, it’s a subsystem “sniper” weapon, hence the low ammo count, you should be able to pop half the components in just a handful of shots through any ship.
Eve is rock-paper-scissors designed, ship+equipment+tactics, ED is a bit more like real life, why would you drive a TATA once you have a BMW, or why would you use a Sherman once you have access to a M1, that sort of logic.
/edit
Realistically a squadron of Spitfires would not be able to take down a F16, a squad of Sherman tanks would also not be able to take down a M1. It’s a different approach, everyone has their preferences, gameplay vs realism or whatever.
I like my tactics though 
It’s bad gameplay to have your only advancement be having more money. I’m of the opinion a cheaper ship with a skilled pilot should be able to at least take on an objectively “better” more expensive ship with a worse pilot.
Maybe I like the way my TATA drives better than my drag racer(Eagle vs. FDL)
I totally agree. I just believe it limits creative/dynamic gameplay or whatever you want to call it.
Even since the old forums I have always swayed towards realism, so my opinion is slanted towards that, even though I have conceded a lot of my realism fetish towards gameplay and fun over the years.
Yet good gameplay and fun is a matter of preference more than it is a matter of logic, it’s subjective. I don’t wish to argue semantics, just trying to get the general logic across.
I totally understand it. I actually tend towards realism as well. I really want my hardcore orbital mechanics but I don’t think I will get them
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to have 10 inexpensive things destroy 1 expensive thing. After all, how many modern torpedoes or missiles would it take to sink an aircraft carrier?
I think a better example would be how many F-16s would it take to bring down an F-35 or F-22. It wouldn’t take many.
You need 0 f16s to take down one f35.
D:
6 Likes
[quote=“Skyentist, post:679, topic:227”]
It’s bad gameplay to have your only advancement be having more money[/quote]
I’m with @Skyentist on this one. Making bigger heavier and better armed ships slower than smaller more nimble ships seems like a no-brainer for a nice balance in a game. I find a straight progression up with more expensive ships being better at everything to be a fairly dull design decision.
2 Likes
Ouch…self-defeating aircraft. No bueno.
1 Like