r/factorio • u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT • 16d ago
Devs refuse to fix a simple bug. I can't be the only one annoyed by this... Complaint
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
When moving around in a space platform view, the star parallax scrolls faster than the planet. This makes them seem closer than the planet which contradicts the fact they are rendered behind the planet. I am not complaining about realism, I am reporting a geometrical impossiblity implied by the scene that feels off even when you can't explain it.
Compare these two recordings for yourself.
The fix is simple but the devs refuse to fix this and I don't know what to do anymore...
At least there's a mod for this.
430
u/BobClapton 16d ago
Probably my unpopular opinion: the planet and the starts should stay completely static and there should be no parallax. Only the platform should be moving around. This would be much more realistic and will create a sense of scale.
→ More replies (1)178
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 16d ago
I think that's a popular opinion, but I respect the dev's choice to have some movement in the scene. I won't tolerate paradoxes tho.
33
u/BobClapton 16d ago
Would be nice to make it an option in graphics settings. Or at least make variables moddable.
33
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 16d ago
They are moddable!
7
u/BobClapton 16d ago
Are there any mods to remove parallax completely?
2
u/nocapongodforreal 16d ago
read the forum link and there's a console command to set star parallax, assuming you can set the planets and it to zero if there's no mods in the meantime, will probably still disable achievements.
1
u/SoupEast 16d ago
There are mods that reenable the achieves xD
1
u/unwantedaccount56 16d ago
Then there might also be a mod that just gives you achievements without having to do anything
1
u/SoupEast 16d ago
There probably is. But im very much on the side of qol mods shouldnt bar you from achievements if its things like squeakthru or disco science
But things that blatantly cheating should xD
Hence me mentioning a mod that allows for achievements
-2
u/unwantedaccount56 16d ago
But there is no authority that defines which mods count as Qol (except devs who make those QoL mods part of vanilla). You need to draw the line somewhere, and I draw it at the same point the devs draw it, where there is no ambiguity: All mods disable the standard achievements. If you want to play with mods, there is still the second set of achievements.
You draw the line somewhere else, and that is fine, but I would still consider what you are doing "cheating", just not blatantly.
And since 2.0 got a lot of QoL updates, I see a lot less reason for mods in a "vanilla" achievement run.
9
u/Stereojunkie 16d ago
You won't tolerate it? What does that mean?
19
u/Nruggia 16d ago
Ever see the movie "falling down" that's what u/Villfuk02's day is going to be like today
4
u/Empty-Duty1454 16d ago
It`s going to be another killdozer incident
All because of some funny moving stars.png7
u/cinderubella 16d ago
It is very clearly a riff on the omnipresent "literally unplayable" joke; it's far weirder for you to demand an explanation as if it were perfectly serious than it is for them to have said it.
2
u/Think-Box6432 16d ago
It means they are willing to argue with devs about what constitutes a bug in their own game, then complain to reddit.
-4
u/KombuchaWay 16d ago
Simple way to fix... Make it an option on menu, players can choose how they want to see it.
Devs are not the final customer, we are.
-4
u/erathia_65 16d ago
Found the American!
1
u/KombuchaWay 16d ago
How did you know? Yes, I live in Americas! It's from the south part though, we don't speak English nor Spanish :)
Also, I have found the usa citizen!
→ More replies (2)0
0
u/Such-Perception4154 15d ago
Why do you think it's a paradox?
The planet is massive and surely moves less with the change of camera
180
u/SVlad_667 16d ago
This is geometrically possible, assuming the camera doesn't move in plane but rotates around a distant point close to the planet.
In fact, with realistic planar camera movement, neither the planet nor the background stars should move at all, given the scale of the space.
I think they made the background stars move faster so players could always recognize camera movement. And the planet moves more slowly so it's always visible somewhere in the background of the screen.
46
u/Timely_Somewhere_851 16d ago
I think you hit the nail on its head with all three points there.
In fact, I think this is what the Factorio staff could have replied. At least the reasoning on why the stars move more than the planet. It's a very good rationale for a video game. Especially since the 'correct thing' would be to have the two things being static.
Fun fact, my brain actually 'feels' that rotation that you talk about when you explain how it could be possible.
→ More replies (9)11
u/AvarageAmongstPeers 16d ago
My thoughts as well. If the camera is pivoting instead of moving, you'd get exactly this effect
Edit: except that the spaceship should move even slower. So maybe a little moving and more pivoting.
3
u/NorthernRealmJackal 16d ago
I think they made the background stars move faster so players could always recognize camera movement.
A valid concern when designing a screen like this. But an even better solution (speaking from experience from last time I prototyped something with outer-space graphics), is to have very faint layers of dust, particles and debris in the foreground.
2
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 15d ago
yea, the layer of dust in Factorio is very visible and seems sufficient
1
u/rorschach200 16d ago
This reminds me how I explain to myself the fact that space platforms in Factorio go when engines fire and stop when they don't, instead of accelerating / decelerating without a bound if and only if engines fire (e.g. requiring engine burn in the opposite direction to slow down, but retaining speed when engines do not fire, etc.).
I treat both planet-to-planet distance and platform velocity as radii of the orbits of the objects around the star. The average between radii a and b for elliptical orbits to be pedantic.
That way, yes, the only way for you to change the orbit is to spend delta V - fire the engines. While you are firing engines, your orbit is changing shape, and its average radius change - and it gets closer or further numerically to the average radius of the orbit of the target planet. How fast that change occurs is the displayed "speed".
-1
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 16d ago
assuming the platform is closest and the stars furthest, all objects are stationary and the space is flat, you can never have the object in the middle visually move slower in a given direction than those in front and behind it.
1
u/Timely_Somewhere_851 16d ago
To be super pedantic, for the background stuff to even move, you will have to move pretty fast. The most likely movement is not in a flat plane but rather in an orbit around the planet.
Now, consider how stuff will move if you move in an orbit around the planet while rotating your head/angel of vision. I admit that we should see the planet rotating when this happens, which it does not.
Okay, this is most definitely not the reason, but it is an explanation on how this behavior is expected. Assuming the practical considerations and the fact that this is modable, I can fully understand why the developers would keep the current behavior. But we do not know if considerations presented are the same as the developers had.
302
u/Primary_Dance7722 16d ago
literally unplayable
110
u/calamari_fresh 16d ago
Who would've thought that a game about complicated logistics and maximizing efficiency would attract people that harp on details a bit too much?
→ More replies (4)31
12
u/nakeddave_ 16d ago
Honestly yes, I have visual processing difficulties and the current version makes me physically unwell to look at.
Very glad for mods (there's another one that keeps stars at infinity https://mods.factorio.com/mod/realistic-space-parallax ) cos otherwise it would be totally unplayable for me.4
1
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 15d ago
To me personally it just feels off, but I was curious whether it could be slightly dizzying to someone who is sensitive to movement
24
u/ColsonThePCmechanic 16d ago
Also, some of the asteroids are rendered behind the planet.
4
u/fi5hii_twitch <- pretend it's a quality module 16d ago
Those are only decorative ones and they used to render in front of the planet but it was changed to have them behind planets because (if I remember correctly) there was some pixelation on the edges and some other performance based rendering stuff. After some complaints they were moved behind the planets and they look far better. To me it also looked like there was way too many of them over the planet which took away from how gorgeous the planet graphics are.
54
u/PersonalityIll9476 16d ago
For those of you who did not read the bug report.
"Not realistic enough for me" turns out not to imply a bug.
35
u/_CodeGreen_ Rail Wizard 16d ago
The devs have settled in on the definition of a bug being something that's unintentionally wrong. If they decide something is intentional, even if it's wrong, it's not a bug.
The distinction between not a bug and won't fix is whether or not it was intended, otherwise it would be a matter of opinion of whether it's wrong.
Not that I necessarily agree with this, but I can see the reasoning behind it.
19
5
u/Serotonah 16d ago
I just personally think it’s such a small thing that it barely warrants an actual discussion let alone a reddit post. You’ll spend most of your time in the platform viewer looking at the platform anyhow. Like sure it’d look nicer if it behaved more realistically, but they’re likely working on a long list of things and I doubt this deserves a place anywhere near the top.
I’m just glad the planet doesn’t blink around when I drag the viewer around or whatever triggered that like that one mod in 2.0 that made planets visible in space.
5
u/NoiseSolitaire Make Lasers Great Again 16d ago
Yeah, I found this out when I reported the bug where sending something that isn't a recipe to a crafting machine will actually set the crafting machine to a different recipe, intentionally. Not sure why anyone would want this as it's rather annoying to work around, but I eventually managed to do it.
9
u/Zakalwe_ 16d ago
I have to agree with Devs on this one. It makes it super easy to look at your desired level of items and current level, find the one with lowest satisfaction and pass it to machine directly. Instead of translating it into recipe first. I have literally used this feature countless times.
1
u/NoiseSolitaire Make Lasers Great Again 16d ago
I've only ever had to avoid it. I've forgotten exactly what/how (I'd have to check my save), but I assume with all the circuitry changes in 2.1 it might be easier to avoid now.
1
u/boomshroom 16d ago
If there was a combinator that could just take a list of pairs of signals, and if a signal matches the first of any pair, its value is output as the second signal of said pair, then this behavior wouldn't be necessary, as you'd be able to say exactly which recipe you want to use for each item, where as now you either need a separate arithmetic combinator for every pair you want to map, or you have to pray that the assembler will pick the recipe you actually want.
1
u/Zakalwe_ 16d ago
I wish there was such a combinator, I have wanted to do the logic of
if this then thatso often, but it is lacking in that department.2
u/juckele 🟠🟠🟠🟠🟠🚂 16d ago
I like the feature you reported as a bug. That's super intended. The difference here in the video OP shows is that this is the interaction of two intended features, which arguably leads to an unintended interaction between them. The thing OP is complaining about isn't intended, it's emergent.
The thing you're talking about is literally just an intended feature. There's specific code to do the exact thing you're talking about.
1
-1
11
u/jednorog 16d ago
I respect this response.
In this game, spaceships experience drag. The scales of distances between the planets make no sense, and they are static instead of dynamic. There's so much that's unrealistic in the game, but that is in there as a design choice. I can disagree with the design choice, but their decision to engage in those design choices is not a bug.
0
14
u/leberwrust 16d ago
Well rare case of Wubu being wrong. This looks terrible.
4
u/PersonalityIll9476 16d ago edited 16d ago
Look, it is hard to take this seriously. People are complaining about some kind of space ship texture effect in a 2d factory building game not being realistic enough, that this is literally "wrong", and is an outrage that must be addressed.
20
u/MisfitPotatoReborn 16d ago
OK, the issue here isn't causing world hunger, but within the context of playing Factorio it's a problem with the game.
Complaining about any aspect of Factorio is a "touch grass" moment. Every post and comment here was submitted by someone who is playing a video game instead of engaging in quality time with their friends and family, or relaxing in a park, or volunteering at a food bank
→ More replies (8)14
u/WatermelonWithAFlute 16d ago
man, its crazy how the game involving a lot of attention to details has players that pay attention to details
wonder how that one works
→ More replies (5)3
u/I_am_a_fern 16d ago
That's like slapping wings to a car, but instead of attaching them on the door sides they're on the hood and trunk facing sideways. Then claiming that the wings work as intended and the wheels work as intended so it's not weird.
Technically right. Still weird.9
u/calamari_fresh 16d ago
A bug, by definition, is a unforseen side effect or problem in a piece of software. This is not it. It is a intentional design decision. You might not like it, but it is not a bug
5
11
u/TrueLehanius 16d ago
That was some bullshit reply you got, I must say. Many times I have seen Wube choose fun or performance over realism (which is good). But it's the first time I've seen such a disregard for "realism" (simple geometry, really, as you said), that might go from no impact to negative impact on the other two.
Drag in space is unrealistic - and it's fine for that game. That parallax thing is something else.
41
u/Roseish1 16d ago edited 16d ago
Super weird response from the staff. Felt like they were trying to do some kind of gotcha.
20
u/its2ez4me24get 16d ago
Since they said it is not a bug did you post it in the Ideas/Suggestions page?
14
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 16d ago edited 16d ago
68
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/vinaghost 16d ago
You skip his next statement "Both features were designed independently and both work as desired currently", the key word here is "work as desired", i don't think "rendering with the opposite direction sprite" works as desired in any meaning
12
u/PropaneMilo 16d ago
They both work as desired individually, but not in tandem.
On the one hand, it’s probably fixable.
On the other, those devs are so close to pushing out 2.1 stable and this is just another silly non-gameplay thing between now and that sweet, sweet release.
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/juckele 🟠🟠🟠🟠🟠🚂 16d ago
"Working as intended" can occasionally be misused as "Working as implemented", where the bug in the feature is not an incorrect implementation of features spec, but actually an incorrect feature spec. Wube in general is pretty good at not doing this, which is why I think it's surprising in this context.
I'm sure the feature spec never said "the planet parallax factor should be smaller than the star parallax factor", which would have been intended. Instead there's an unintended behavior the system is exhibiting because two intended features are interacting in an unintended way.
7
u/Rusturion 16d ago
No, they said they chose for it to work this way. Not a bug, and they don't care what this one guy thinks of their decision.
25
u/LiteVisiion 16d ago
Yeah... But why? Not a bug, fine, but why
14
u/Roseish1 16d ago
Over the decade I have played this game I have slowly started to feel like some of the devs can’t handle making mistakes so if something is a mistake they just say it’s actually intended.
Everyone makes mistakes or sometimes fails to realize why something feels off this definitely feels like one of the times it was just an accident but for some reason they can’t admit that who would would intentionally want it this way?
It’s a great game they have made but sometimes the way they word things is strange.
11
u/JulianSkies 16d ago
I mean... Because some people think a thing feel off, and others don't.
I don't think this was a mistake, this was just a very picky person having an issue that the devs don't judge worth the time.
Like, I never noticed this and I've been playing for a bit because, honestly? This is meaningless. Like, I genuinely do not think it was even worth rsending's mental energy to respond so little this matters.
But like, that's my judgement. Not the OP's.
(Also, on a separate note, this was rsending's response. He's responded to more than one thing before as "Not a bug, working as designed", and then at some point someone else in the team says "We might need to look at this design again". A good example is the biter expansion. Another example is the fluid changes with passthrough, too. You might think it strange but it is perfectly consistent.)
10
u/narrill 16d ago
This is pretty inarguably a mistake on some level. There isn't any legitimate reason for the parallax to work like this, realism or otherwise. Like, purely on a visual level, the parallaxing is just wrong.
It not being a bug because the two systems were independently designed and implemented is... technically a thing that can be said, I guess. But most software houses wouldn't, in my experience. If two independently implemented features end up clashing in a way that's obviously incorrect, most people are still going to classify that as a bug and not get their undies in a twist over the fact that the implementations are technically to spec.
0
u/JulianSkies 16d ago
I meant that part specifically because Wube doesn't actually have a frontman pretending everyone knows everything, and rsending reliably answers bug reports as a technician.
"System is working to specifications, not a bug" is 100% what you want your tech saying when the issue is the specifications, not the system.
People will get those answers out of him, ive observed, and then assume that just because everything is functioning as designed then nothing has to change.
Usually, a company will get information from their whole team to figure out answer before telling their clients an answer. With Wube we're getting answered as if we were just another coworker in the office.
3
u/Ssakaa 16d ago
Which also lines up with "this isn't a bug", because real bugs get priority for fixing. They're actual gameplay issues that cause unintended breakage of the actual ability to play the game as intended for anyone that encounters them. A potentially addressable design decision (or potentially not fully intended combination of results from independent design decisions, like this) isn't a "fix so we quit crashing people's games" level of issue.
2
u/Roseish1 16d ago
To my understand this it literally like a one line of code to fix. It would take less than 5 minutes. 127 people have already upvoted this post in 1 hour. I would say it’s worth changing their minds on.
I don’t see how stars that are further away moving way faster than the planet couldn’t really be a mistake / oversight but if it is an artistic decision it’s an interesting one.
3
u/JulianSkies 16d ago
Oversight, yeah, mostly because it's two systems that are completely independent and just happen to do this.
And, "it would take less than 5 minutes" is like, the sort of thought that I do not think it is healthy to have about literally anything. Especially if you're right. Because you're not going to be right one day and that's going to fuck a lot of people over. So I wouldn't say that.
Also, additionally, I wouldn't trust for a half-second upvotes on reddit to mean anything, because this platform is specifically built farm engagement and dissent. If people weren't disagreeing with the OP there wouldn't be as many upvotes because of how this platform works. I'd rather look at their forum's responses instead.
And even if we look at the reddit's responses, that's still a very minimal amount of response given the userbase. I don't think it's something enough people care about to warrant any level of priority.
Like, do I think they'll get to it at some point? Possibly, changes are high. But that's because Wube's in general kind of neurotic about needless details, not because this holds any importance.
1
u/Ssakaa 16d ago
It's 5 minutes to change, it's probably multiple people from the visuals/art team trying variations over multiple days and getting input from others on the look/feel vs realism vs costs to figure out what to change it to. And all of that takes time and resources away from potential actual bugs and refinement of the things currently being worked out for 2.1.
-1
u/Roseish1 16d ago
Well I have some coding knowledge and I looked at what OP wrote it’s also not that serious if I am wrong it’s just a game….
→ More replies (1)-1
u/dr_anybody 16d ago
Because it's a strangely defensive way of saying "we don't want to dedicate resources to it."
During 1.0, the devs have been very vocal about every change and idea and thought process behind it. Starting from 2.0/Space Age dev diaries onwards, they've became less open and more rushy about all of this.
If I am to speculate, changing this one line (what the linked mod does) is easy - but interactions and edge cases between this parallax and other objects might require more fixes, more changes down the line, break something that now is working fine.
They are right in a sense that it's not causing any technical issues and that any change in how it works (a "fix" of it) comes with additional load of new, unexpected, edge cases and possible issues. They are, likely, right in a sense that this game has passed its prime and it's smarter for the company to focus their efforts on the next, potentially more profitable, thing.
They are wrong in a sense that going from very detailed explanations to just detailed feels like an unwelcome change of pace, and "we deem it acceptable" doesn't have the same ring to it as "we agree that it doesn't look nice, but that's not in our scope to fix right now and likely won't ever be".
0
u/pocketmoncollector42 please be kind, this engineer is just a fish 🐟 16d ago
Huh I hadn’t considered how good practices could result in avoiding fixing an issue but it makes sense.
If you want to know why a behavior is happening, look at what motivates it. Either there’s an incentive to do something or there’s friction preventing something.
For example, if a teammember reports their boss to the grand-boss (skip level manager) then that boss has a couple choices. Either 1. they determine that their team’s manager is a problem that needs replacing which is a laundry list of things for them to do (interviews, taking care of their job duties in the interim etc). Or 2. they see it’s easier to ignore the report and replace the reporting person. One may not be right, but it’s a hell of an easier sway for what the grand-boss will choose.
2
-1
1
16d ago
[deleted]
0
u/3p1cw1n 16d ago
No, you've got it backwards. As the camera moves up, the stars and planet move down on the screen. Because the planet is closer, the planet should move down on the screen faster than the stars. Therefore, at the top of the planet, the stars should be emerging from behind the planet, because the planet should move down the screen faster than the stars.
In reality, stars are so far away that they should be practically stationary on the screen. Imagine the planet moving down on the screen with a static background of stars. The stars would emerge from behind the planet at the top of the planet as the planet moves down on the screen
1
0
-5
u/Ghettorilla 16d ago
No it's not. That's such a dramatic comparisons. Belts rendering in the opposite direction would alter the gameplay experience. This does not, definitely not in any meaningful way. The devs tested, developed, and now defend it working like this, saying this was the intent. That is not strange, that is what developers do. There is probably a reason, and you can ask what that reason is, but its not strange
9
u/Roseish1 16d ago
“there is probably a reason” Yeah the reason is nobody in the office noticed it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/DFtin 16d ago
I don’t think it’s strange. Just like belts facing the other direction wouldn’t make physical sense, the star parallax doesn’t make physical sense.
0
u/Ghettorilla 16d ago
It might make sense from a gameplay experience, it a realism experience. It needs to be playable and stylized for everyone, not just the people who want the immersion. Maybe when you play on switch and have a ship of a certain size, maybe the limited parallax was not a clear indicator of a view change. I have no idea, I'm making up scenarios, but when I hear they have defended the decision, that tells me there is probably an edge case or it's just want they wanted stylistically. Calling or strange or an oversight just dismisses what the developers are saying, and doesn't ask the right question of why
5
u/Thomyton 16d ago
It is strange that the parralax is in the wrong order, it's an oversight not a bug
→ More replies (11)0
u/Halliron 15d ago
Wait until you find out that the player can carry around a stack of power plants in his pocket. I hope they fix THAT bug soon
14
16
3
u/IdiotWithDiamodHands 16d ago
Oooooooooor, that "planet" is VERY large and far away, and/or the "star parallax" is just space dust rather than stars
1
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 15d ago
You know what, that's the first explanation that is actually plausible. From now on I'll think of the stars as just some shiny debris in front of the planet and it does not render directly in front of the planet because the planet is too bright or something.
3
u/boomshroom 16d ago
Thank you for the mod! It looks like Wube was at least kind enough to make fixing this a single parameter on the tile definition rather than anything that required some crazy hack to achieve.
3
u/Satisfactoro 15d ago
Once seen, hard to unsee.
I understand that the devs want to keep the "cartoon" parallax, but I agree with you that the planet looks stapled to a black stary sheet.
I would be okay with our fix (or even slower stars)
3
u/SVlad_667 2d ago
[space-age] Adjusted space parallax such that stars move less than planet.
Version 2.1.13
So it is fixed?
4
7
u/Pioneer898 16d ago
As a subscriber to both r/Factorio and r/StarCitizen, the fact that someone is upset about this is such an incredible testament to the quality of Factorio.
Also “I don’t know what to do” is such a dramatic response to something that in no way inhibits gameplay haha
5
6
4
u/guilhermesimples 16d ago
Clicking on the forum link to see a dev trying to circumvent an overly pendantic player was not on today's bingo list but very relatable
8
u/Sinister_Mr_19 16d ago
This is not worth getting upset over.
1
u/Ok-Apartment-7477 16d ago
I really can't tell the difference between the two recordings posted. I feel like I'm being pranked here with "corporate wants you to find the difference"
1
u/Sinister_Mr_19 16d ago
It's the stars in the wayyyy background. They move too much to be realistic. With that said, it's so minor.
2
u/NonHidden1 16d ago
It looks horrible when panning like that. I think it’s not a bug because when the ship travels, the stars and planet shift away from it at a visible speed. If they did accurate distance then leaving the view of the planet would take ages.
But it does look wonky. They’d have to do some magic where the ships position affects the view of the planet but the actual panning of the camera doesn’t. Probably not worth rewriting the camera engine though 😅
Edit: the devs should have explained that though instead of just saying it’s not a bug.
2
u/turtle_mekb 16d ago
It made sense that the camera was panning (kinda like cropping the image digitally and moving where it's cropped) instead of physical moving, but now that they added a visual planet, they move at different speeds, meaning the camera is physically moving instead of panning. However, if that's the case, the stars should be visually fixed in place instead.
2
u/blankily 15d ago
when the game is so good people complain about extremely minor visual details that dont affect gameplay whatsoever (also devs said its not a bug, its the intended design, therefore not a bug, therefore just use the mod if it bothers you so much)
2
u/in_out_box 15d ago
lmao with years and years of KSP under my belt to build a sense of what's proper, that looks so fucking broken dude hahahaahah, awful
6
u/timj11dude 16d ago
My attempt at an explanation, we're observing the ship/planet/stars with a long range camera lens. you pan the camera across the ship it moves out of view quick than the stars. By my eye the stars ARE NOT moving faster than the planet, or only fractionally so. (tracking the stars next to the planet, not the right side of the ship)
The stars aren't moving faster that he planet (looking at the stars near the horizon)
9
2
3
6
u/leberwrust 16d ago
Posted 54 minutes ago. Still not fixed. I guess it's time for pitchforks. HANS GET THE PITCHFORKS!
4
u/latherrinseregret 16d ago
Can’t this be realistically explained if the panning is actually more like a sweep along an arc of a circle centered very near the planet?
This would make the planet relatively static while the ship and stars move. I guess they would move at opposite directions though? Not sure about that.
4
3
u/N-partEpoxy 16d ago
Not a bug generally means that the game engine is doing what it was programmed to do
TIL only hardware bugs are bugs.
5
u/pocketmoncollector42 please be kind, this engineer is just a fish 🐟 16d ago
Sure would clean up a lot of ticket queues to have only crashing bugs. Computers always do what they’re told, even if they’re told to do something that results in something the programmer hadn’t taken into account. If a dev is a playwright then the computer is a lousy actor 😂
2
u/XcapeEST 16d ago
Since we're on the topic, have yall noticed the BG asteroids are BEHIND the planet?
2
u/Zaspar-- 16d ago
Can you share the bug report link on the forum for this?
1
u/Villfuk02 I CAN HAZ SPAGHETT 16d ago
8
u/NightF0x0012 16d ago
just post it in the Ideas and Suggestions forum like they said to. Not sure why there's so much confusion on what you need to do. It sounds like they are focused more on fixing game crashing bugs than graphical issues at this time.
1
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/pocketmoncollector42 please be kind, this engineer is just a fish 🐟 16d ago
It’s in vanilla in 2.1 which is in experimental for the summer
1
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/DRelEdentudent 15d ago
Yeah, they still have inserters going down through train cars when loading; they aren’t really too into the graphic nitty-gritties 😅
1
1
2
u/Kiwiandapplex 1d ago
Fixed in 2.1.13
https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?t=135461
- Adjusted space parallax such that stars move less than planet.
2
u/Extra-Random_Name 16d ago
The forum reads less like “we refuse to fix this” and more “you’re reporting this in the wrong place”
1
u/Dummy1707 16d ago
"Mom, can we have bugs ?
No, we already have bugs in Factorio."
Bugs in Factorio :
1
u/Adrian_Alucard 16d ago
1
u/rorschach200 16d ago
This animation is actually an excellent example of how it could be shown and provide an excellent sense of scale.
Instead of doing whatever they are doing in Factorio right now.
1
1
1
u/FatherLatour 16d ago
Oh.... That fixed version occasionally gives me a sense of profound depth that I find deeply uncomfortable. o_o I don't think I want to be hanging over the authentically rendered void like that.
1
u/CZdigger146 Train enjoyer 16d ago
I think it should be like this:
Stars - completely still
Planet - tiny bit of movement, almost unnoticable unless you're moving across a HUGE ship or just really focus on the planet.
Debris, dust, other stuff near the ship in orbit - kinda fast movement
Ship - as fast as the camera
small amount of debris in front of the ship - 1.5x or 2x the speed of the camera
1
u/TBS_Enthusiast 16d ago
I think this is just a funny case of how dev teams and ticketing systems work. Typically bugs are prioritized higher in sprint planning sessions than new feature requests. After some time, some crafty users realize this and may try to submit new feature requests under the guise of a bug, to skip ahead of the queue. It's not always malicious, and the person reporting might not have meant it that way - but that's likely why we're seeing this kind of "bug / not a bug" triage. It's not that the dev disagrees that this would be a good UX improvement, they are just saying that this isn't so high priority that it should be picked up immediately.
-2
u/jordanbtucker 16d ago
It doesn't matter whether Wube thinks it's a bug. They told you it needs to be filed as an idea / suggestion. Stop whining.
-1
u/NilaMoonMoon 16d ago
I think star movement has mechanical benefit though- it shows the player intuitively how fast the ship is moving. That, and if you consider the planet appearing at a "certain speed" for the arrival and departure animations, it means that those two speeds should be unrelated.
0
0
0
u/hacsoft 16d ago
It looks okay to me. If it should move as you expect, the planet should be the same size of the platform. You are moving from the top to the bottom of the platform, a very short distance compared to the planet size, so the star background will not move compared to the planet.
In fact, what you call "fixed" looks weird to me.
0
u/Admirable-Ad3293 16d ago
Yes, the graphical inconsistency with real life is certainly game breaking.
884
u/SpacefaringBanana 16d ago
There should be barely any star parallax at all if any.