EVE General Discussion

sure why not

I missed the 7000th post in german lagl.

They give out prices. I got sniped by two who posted roughly at the same time.
Should have trusted my instincts, they wanted me to hit POST earlier. -.-

I feel ya.

Oh and btw this thread has ran it's course long ago.

They also said there's barely any visual difference.

It still matters to some people...

I had a friend who had an HD TV...

Shrek came on...

They literally spent the first 20 minutes of the movie whining that it wasn't in high definition and it looked awful and pressing their nose to the screen so they could complain that they thought they saw some pixel edges/etc... Before we looked it up and discovered that it *was* a high-definition version of the movie - it was all in their head.

99% of people can't tell the difference between super-ultra-high-resolution images and 3 steps above a potato - our eyes aren't really that sensitive.

But it won't stop people from freaking out about it

Well, almost.
They are potentially sensitive enough.

That's why i continuously upped the dpi on my notebooks.


From 1366x768 on 13" ...
... to 1920x1080 on 15" ...
... to 1920x1200 on 8".

I still see pixels on 15", but it's barely.

The 8" one finally beat my eyes! :D

How many more Yes's do they need?! And why is this petition even necessary if it's just an optional download? What's wrong with just giving us options? Why do they ships look the same size as one another? A frigate is dwarfed by a battleship but next to each other, the textures are the same size. It's 2016, is that really acceptable now? They say the visual difference isn't noticeable yet a character made with the new character creation tool is, given how little you see your character (WiS is hardly worth mentioning)?

Yes, please! I want Hi-res assets. I want all the rez!

/supported.

How about a low resolution texture pack.

Or a hardware for PLEX offer.

Interest is certainly high. However, no matter how many people ask for a thing, if we do an enormous amount of work, pushing aside other improvements to do it, and deliver a high-res texture pack for it just to be a tremendous disappointment, we haven't ultimately done the right thing for players.

To refresh everyone's memory about where we've been on this:

• We do not now have a means to provide optional graphic asset downloads for the game. Development could change this, but it has not been a priority due to the rest of the points on this list. (The game itself is also a pretty large download already, and significantly increasing texture resolution would compound that.)


• We do have higher-res textures than what we're delivering for some, but not all, ships and space assets. However, the resolution is not a lot more than what we're delivering in terms of its visual detail. The textures we have are generally scaled to look reasonably good on a 2k display with ships filling a large portion of the screen.


• There has been some work done toward supporting this goal technically. However, our testing has consistently shown us that the visual benefit is minimal in practice, so we currently (once again, after going back and forth a few times) do not have plans to release such a texture pack.


• Citadels include a shader that introduces detail at varying scales. We're looking at applying this in a wider variety of situations so objects feel more natural when you're very close to them for their size.


• Eve's enormously varying scale is a unique issue to the game, so solutions that have worked for your favorite third-person MMO or first-person-shooter won't work for us.

Regarding Eve's new vs. old character creator systems, that's a totally different situation. The new character creator has more naturally proportioned characters, more realistic lighting, more realistic texture design, and the differences you see have nothing to do with texture resolution.

Bottom line: The value isn't there for a high-resolution texture pack. We're spending our time working on other ways to make the game look better.


These issues are really complicated because many viewers don't distinguish between the cues they use to establish whether an image feels real, or real enough.

In the case of Shrek, (a project I know well because I was present for its production at Pacific Data Images in Palo Alto in the late 90s,) the lighting and rendering technology was at least two or three generations earlier than what's seen in high-end movies today, and it really shows, without regard to display resolution. The movie was, however, rendered at slightly better than 720p resolution, far short of what a 1080p monitor will display, so it's possible that your friend was reacting to some real resolution artifacts.

It's also true that most television sets, unadjusted, out of the box, apply a ton of sharpening that can create jagged edges where there weren't any before. It's possible your friend's concerns could have been entirely addressed by turning down the "sharpness" setting on the display.

I should point out that the "unsophisticated viewers won't notice" argument has NEVER been a justification for doing less than the best work possible at CCP or any of the animation or visual effects companies I've worked for in my 20.5 years in the field. In this instance, it's more like "sophisticated viewers who know exactly what to look for don't think the difference will add much to the experience, after doing actual visual tests with real ships and textures."