Really hope they will rework how you land on planets

[Qtael]

After seeing how it’s implemented in star citizen and no mans sky it really breaks immersion in starfield

If they can rework it, it will be amazing

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by lefty1117:

Gotta be honest, I've played lots of Star Citizen and ED. I'm not sure I want that style of landing in Starfield. In both games I find myself looking for ways to circumvent or otherwise not have to deal with it. I've actually made decisions about what to do in Star Citizen because I didn't want to be hassled with landing or leaving certain areas. But I do think in Starfield there's a lack of landing and takeoff transitions so it becomes boring very quickly. They should add a bunch of new transition scenes, maybe a dynamic camera. Maybe add a keypress to bypass the scene. Also, this may not be a popular opinion but fast travel between previously visited places, especially outposts, is a god send later in the game. Rebel Galaxy Outlaw is another example of a game that did these sort of transition cutscenes pretty well. Quick and to the point.

What places do you not want to be bothered with landing at in SC? And what ship(s)?

[momopovich]

Originally posted by Etharian:

If you want most of the games problems to get fixed, they would have to remake the entire game in a new engine just to get it to work properly. It's so bad even the modders who fixed Skyrim gave up on trying to fix this game.

Skyrim never needed fixing, neither does Starfield

Plenty modders are working on SF or waiting for the CK.

If you're referring to the guy who made a (terrible) multiplayer mode for Skyrim and stopped working on Starfield the only reaction is "LOL"

[PortalShifter]

Originally posted by patrick68794:

If your PC is ♥♥♥♥, sure. On decent PCs it'd run much the same as it does right now if they reworked the game to allow seamless landing and in-atmosphere flight. Space travel within a seamless star system would require moving to 64 bit coordinates, which would increase memory usage but wouldn't have any real impact on performance. You can increase your movement speed to 100x or more and everything streams fine on decent hardware. People have also increased ship movement speed and have physically traveled between planets in-game. Not that you've played the game to know of course lol

*laughs in Creation Engine*

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by PortalShifter:

Originally posted by patrick68794:

If your PC is ♥♥♥♥, sure. On decent PCs it'd run much the same as it does right now if they reworked the game to allow seamless landing and in-atmosphere flight. Space travel within a seamless star system would require moving to 64 bit coordinates, which would increase memory usage but wouldn't have any real impact on performance. You can increase your movement speed to 100x or more and everything streams fine on decent hardware. People have also increased ship movement speed and have physically traveled between planets in-game. Not that you've played the game to know of course lol

*laughs in Creation Engine*

I guess if you don't know what you're talking about then things that aren't funny seem to be

[lefty1117]

Originally posted by patrick68794:

Originally posted by lefty1117:

Gotta be honest, I've played lots of Star Citizen and ED. I'm not sure I want that style of landing in Starfield. In both games I find myself looking for ways to circumvent or otherwise not have to deal with it. I've actually made decisions about what to do in Star Citizen because I didn't want to be hassled with landing or leaving certain areas. But I do think in Starfield there's a lack of landing and takeoff transitions so it becomes boring very quickly. They should add a bunch of new transition scenes, maybe a dynamic camera. Maybe add a keypress to bypass the scene. Also, this may not be a popular opinion but fast travel between previously visited places, especially outposts, is a god send later in the game. Rebel Galaxy Outlaw is another example of a game that did these sort of transition cutscenes pretty well. Quick and to the point.

What places do you not want to be bothered with landing at in SC? And what ship(s)?

I still avoid Orison and Lorville with anything bigger than an MSR because they are a timesink to get in and out of.

[patrick68794]

Originally posted by lefty1117:

Originally posted by patrick68794:

What places do you not want to be bothered with landing at in SC? And what ship(s)?

I still avoid Orison and Lorville with anything bigger than an MSR because they are a timesink to get in and out of.

Ah okay, yeah Orison I definitely understand, even with them decreasing the altitude for QT, I avoid it entirely lol Lorville I don't find to be that bad though, it's a quick trip to being high enough to QT now. I think in 3.23 (which is going live this weeks from the sounds of things) it's only 11k meters and ships don't seem to be slowed down quite as much in-atmosphere