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.

@jip said in Factory models:

I feel slightly frustrated that you write this.
We're always open to feedback. In this particular topic I've mentioned that multiple times, let alone that we've even opened up a topic where you can give feedback on specific line ups

Not my intention to frustrate you. Probably more of a question how to get which information across in the future. I tried to explain how "it was written on page 76 of the proposal - how could you not have seen it?!" most likely is going to cause friction.
Alternative: have the most important/impactful changes listed at the top of your post, and even on the whats news page in the client
"New things coming up/which can be tested in FAF DEV:

1. Remodeled factories!
2. Improved sim speed
   ..."
   Then link to the forum and people can jump into discussion.
   I wrote "community" in quotation marks bc I don't want to imply that my opinion is representing the community. Several people in this thread, however, seem to have issues with the direction taken.

I read your 2/3 post you linked to. Did not see any reference to immersion/remodeling.

The feedback options now are good. Just want to point out that I felt like initial pushback from the devs here ("you didnt read", "you didnt play FAF dev" etc. which felt like blaming, nothing constructive). The feedback "let's roll it back bc the changes caused bigger problems compared to the texture issue before" will not be considered from what I understand.

The game was shipped in 2007 - I can live with imperfect textures I barely ever see. What I need to see instantly is which factory is an HQ. The old models served their purpose just fine imo. It does feel feel a little like "the back of the fridge texture looks messed up, even if we hardly ever see it - let's remodel the entire fridge".

Fingers crossed the final result will work well.

@femboy said in Factory models:

Albeit I see the frustration of some people with the similarity of the models, these changes will be better long term.

Jip and co get feedback and improve on the models, then we get better animations / looking structures and so on.

Again, I understand the frustration but every development proceess takes times and testing in production to get real data. Only so much you can do with a few people working on something new

How are things going to get better? Basically no one cared for a few stretched textures. Now most everyone commenting is unhappy with mutilating existing and by now familiar structures which perfectly serve the purpose of allowing to distinguish between factories.
Your comment reads like "trust the plan" - which brought us this "mess" in the first place.
I try to be cool with the new facs - yet the new Cybran factories alone (stripped off outer elements) is a visual clusterf*ck in my book.
I hate what and how things have been handled here. Including the stark push-back on here at first to then - without taking back this criticism - acknowledge that communication was not exactly stellar.

I usually welcome changes on FAF, but this is something where I see no reasonable calculation in terms of pros and cons as a basis but the sheer will and determination to change a thing no matter the costs.
It's alien races, for god's sake - who cares about "stretched textures" as if there is any real logic behind it? The "immersion" tagline was newly introduced while I could not find any reference to that in older statements.
Animations? They occur ONCE in the game for the facs, visible only when zoomed in. I look at the outline of the facs ALL GAME. What a horrific trade-off.

"Trust the plan"
"Which plan?"
"Exactly!"

(Still wishing the team success with their ideas and overall grateful for their work!)

@xiaomao
When you open with "my man" you know its gonna be hyperbolic cringe. well done

@jip said in Developers Iteration III of 2023:

We hope to include them in the future. At the moment they are not within reach to be finished any time soon.

Things would be clearer if you explained things a little more to begin with. This mechanic was working before, now it was removed with you saying eventually it ll be included once again when "finished". Not stating what this "finished state" is nor providing the explanation you just gave now leads to confusion imo.
You also wrote you "hope" to include them again. That is not the same as "we will include it back again", so I wonder what you mean.

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?

@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.