What happened to the factory models? They (HQ and non-HQ) look almost identical now. The easy to spot Aeon land t3 HQ is gone, so is the Cybran t3 land HQ.
The changes, as far as I could see, were barely communicated to the community. I found this in the change log:
"We're slowly but surely preparing the game for a significant visual improvement. [...] (#4456) Re-create the Cybran land factories. [...]

I have no idea if this is an intermediary step or the final result. Cybran air fac animation sometimes looks out of whack when having engineers roll out (transformer mode with factory elements moving rapidly).

I found those changes to be a massive downgrade in terms of visibility (forced to zoom out) and user experience.

If someone could explain if this can be reverted (mod?), why it was implemented and if it is the final stage of the "significant visual improvement" it would be great.

You have 2 s in battle - find the HQ without zooming out.

HQs and non-HQ (incl. Aeon t1 and t3 HQ) is hard to differentiate.
"

Also, the list of units in the cheat menu looks blurry:

Clipping (bottom element):

Another step towards reducing contrast, making it hard to distinguish what is what. Water was identified super easily before. Now it can look like mountains (2nd to last map shown here).
Why do you keep forcing players to spend more time on identifying what is going on on the map? First the HQ change, now this.
Is there an option to enable to old water colors?

Not sure if related to the update: Aeon shields were almost see-through last game I had on a red map. Extremely hard to see.

@phong said in New version of the map generator has been released:

Oh I was operating under the mistaken assumption that you didn't like the changes personally, but it's so comforting to know you are looking out for the rest of us with your Objective opinions based on your vast experience with eye tracking. We really are fortunate to have you here, to protect us from our own ignorance.

This is exactly the kind of petulant silly take reflective of the circle-jerk - proving my point exactly. Criticism is met with snarky remarks without any substance. Why even bother then?
When someone presents themselves as a spokesperson for an anonymous group, putting words in my mouth on top, its just pure cringe.
I take from this that it is best to just ignore questions you direct at me for they are stated in bad faith anyway.

@phong
I am not here to "win" an argument. Ever since the team changed the HQs and only later claimed "there is no way we will revert the change - but we are open for SuGgEsTiOnS" with the usual people here cheering for it, it's clear that the imo circle-jerk mentality here is hard to overcome. Echo chamber deluxe. I accepted it and simply voice my opinion.
Ofc trolls like the guy above cannot handle that and give snarky dumb immature takes - revealing a significant lack of understanding of my criticism to begin with.
The color contrast of the map has been significantly altered (have a look at a color wheel). I have conducted too many eye-tracking reaction time experiments to not conclude the reaction time for grasping what is going on on the map will have been increased bc of this change.

THIS is the substance: usability. In fact, I think I am one of the few on here addressing that over "awww, so shiny pretty looking now :D" (= what you call "packaging"?).
Kinda similar to the HQ change.

Why do unfinished elements get destroyed in FS games when a player receives the base from a former player who is no longer in the game?
A 99 % finished t4/t3 pgen just blows up. Is it possible to just get it similar to a paused upgrading mex which does not blow up?

Iirc Gyle told the community Jip was looking for volunteers - I don't remember him mentioning a remodeling of factories though. I did not see it having been advertized anywhere either. I did read about shaders, but I don't think that is the same as remodeling.
I appreciate the work of developers. These changes just make it an overall worse game experience imo. Identifying the HQ by quickly looking at them is much harder now - forcing the player to zoom out more often in order to see the icons.
Improving shaders only to end up forcing players to zoom out more (and hence not look at the facs in detail) seems non-sensical to me.
Not a fan of the "they'll get used to it" attitude in this case. Overall, the changes feel like a net-loss to me.

I ll just ask again:

1. The reason for the changes was of mere cosmetic nature, correct?
2. Will it be possible to play with the old models (e.g., with a mod)?

This feels like a "sunk-cost fallacy" to me. People invested time and effort, and now are committed to invest even more instead of just rolling it back - no matter what the "community" says. I can understand this motion yet don't agree with it (implementing changes and categorically ruling out a roll back for imo unconvincing reasons given).

If you insist on remodeling I think it would be a good idea to lay out which options are available. Can new elements be added? Any shape? Any restrictions?

I think Jip is one of the best things that has happened to FAF in terms of development. We can't always agree on everything though.

@katharsas said in Why does everything suck so much right now?:

Take a rest @Jip if you need it.

I agree. Jip is one of the best things that has happened to FAF with all the improvements (other contributors not withstanding). One of the benefits of @Jip is that he is very approachable and listens without constantly making snarky, hostile and dismissive comments like others here do. I don't always have to agree with him to see value in that. It's probably really best not to feed the haters and trolls too much. @Jip, if you decide to leave at some point because your sanity is more important to you than arguing with immature people here, then that's the right decision. I hope you can still get something positive out of FAF for the time being. Thanks for your efforts and contributions, they have made a big difference for the better and did not go unnoticed.

@Deribus
I appreciate the work you put in. Looks better than the version before. Overall, i just don't like the effect in general - looks like the green jelly army from Lord of the Rings or a massive toxic wasteland. I didnt mind the effect for arties, prolly bc it was on a small scale, but this now looks more like the result of a scud storm than enlightened higher power alien Aeon tech. Eyesore.
In this case, I d opt for something new. RK4000 has shown that many cool effects are possible - maybe there is something that aligns well with Aeon? Even changing the color prolly will make it look better.

The reasons of the changes were:
(1) The old HQs have no upgrade animations
(2) The old HQs are poorly made
-> "HQs were made by improperly re-using bits of texture and mesh and as a result they look bad."

Correct? It was a mere cosmetic reason? Even the animations do not matter that much, yeah (I say that as a sucker for animations)?

In other words: what would have happened if you had not changed the HQs/factories? People like me who zoom in to the max would be like "hm, texture seems off when looking up close"? Is this the reason, the motivation behind the change?

I think in 10 out of 10 times I would prefer a super easy to recognize factory - no matter how clumsy the ONE TIME animation - for the rest of the game over a shiny new perfectly aligned model which makes me either zoom out in order to see an HQ icon or get frustrated and annoyed with the game for missing the HQ when looking up close.

It's as if the Cybran ACU looked almost identical to the Cybran SACU models. Total nightmare trying to click on the right unit when zoomed in (kinda like finding the ACU icon when SACU icons look the same when zoomed out).

Maybe I am missing something bc so far I fail to see the trade-off working in favor of this change.

My ideal solutions would be:

1. leave the old models but with new shaders (not sure if that works)
2. new shaders with newly build models (looking like the old ones - not sure if/how that works)
3. roll back the changes/allow for players to play with the old models

@blackyps said in Factory models:

If you feel so strongly about the game, please play some faf-develop once in a while or at least read the planned patchnotes.

I cannot remember a visual change that was THIS drastic. I think what you ask for would work better if there was an initial kick-off making this a hot-topic. I do read patch notes, but did not see this piece of information since it was "lost" in a t4 level wall of text (which reflects the hard work you guys do!):

I read the initial notes - and saw all the images about the terrain. I think such drastic changes to models would be easier detected when getting a top spot when presenting planned changes. This time, it was put almost at the end of the list.

Hey,
today, for the first time ever, I saw that an older chat from a few days ago showed up when opening a tab to pm someone. A mod told me a longer time ago that no chats are being saved. Has this changed or is there an issue on my end (I also saw pop ups in Aeolus as if someone pmed me - those were my own messages though).

Which messages are saved for how long and how has access to those?

Mz bad, it was a t2 then.
I could swear it happens with t3 pgens as well. If air player acu dies while pgen was almost done, and then it blows up, air is basically lost.
Maybe someone can explain eventually what the reason behind losing all resources put into the structure is.
If only specific units/structures are effected it would be nice if someone could provide a list of the affected ones.

@Jip
I don't have a replay with a t4 at hand (maybe my memory is off and it was structures only?).
Here is an example of #22913645. At ~ 8:50 my base is transferred and an unfinished t3 pgen blows up.
I think it would be better if all structures and units being build would be transferred without blowing up.

Why do unfinished elements get destroyed in FS games when a player receives the base from a former player who is no longer in the game?
A 99 % finished t4/t3 pgen just blows up. Is it possible to just get it similar to a paused upgrading mex which does not blow up?

Thanks. Maybe it also could be added what kind of map one gets (gras/green, snow/white, alien etc.).
I find some colors harsh on the eyes.

1. "Biome" only has the option "RANDOM" - why have a drop down menu then?
2. Some of the options are unclear. What does "resource generator" mean (basic, low_mex, water_mex)?
   --> many of the terrain generator options are unclear ("flooded, valley, little_mountain, mountain_range)
3. What is prop generator (high_reclaim vs large_battle, what is "basic"?)

It feels like there is very limited information/no examples/images gives, so players have to painstakingly try out all the options to make sense of them. Frustrating.

Easiest to understand elements are the sliders. Helpful. Option to use map names is great too.

4. I don't understand why no water slider will be added back in (how can I ensure I get random maps without water?).
5. If there is a list of terrain options could we just click those we want to be included when going random (to exclude others)?

@katharsas said in Why does everything suck so much right now?:

Take a rest @Jip if you need it.

I agree. Jip is one of the best things that has happened to FAF with all the improvements (other contributors not withstanding). One of the benefits of @Jip is that he is very approachable and listens without constantly making snarky, hostile and dismissive comments like others here do. I don't always have to agree with him to see value in that. It's probably really best not to feed the haters and trolls too much. @Jip, if you decide to leave at some point because your sanity is more important to you than arguing with immature people here, then that's the right decision. I hope you can still get something positive out of FAF for the time being. Thanks for your efforts and contributions, they have made a big difference for the better and did not go unnoticed.

@Jip
I looked at the threads on the individual changes - in almost all the cases the design changes were out criticized or it was pointed out how the changes look ok but still make it harder to distinguish compared to the old models.
Iirc the changes were introduced without a big discussion on the forum or elsewhere. Then the team received a lot of backlash. Subsequently forum threads were opened with said feedback and ever since development stopped? Felt short-sided to me.
I got used to the new models - by zooming out more often, which makes any model irrelevant kinda, which I think is a bad direction to take. I still think the visual changes are making it harder to distinguish HQs and non-HQs.

I wonder: would you do it all over again the same way or would you choose a different approach (if so, how?). Is the HQ re-development concluded at this point?

Thank you!

Hi,
I noticed how t3 arties and other units/buildings are facing south when under construction resulting in them having to slowly turn north when completed when wanting to shoot at enemy units. Iirc this had been changed so the turrets face the center/nearest enemy unit in the past. Was that change reverted? Especially with t3 arties this extra rotation time can make a difference in arty wars (same with t4s when under attack from another t4 coming from the north).
Do I misremember? If not, what is the reason for reverting?