Yo does anyone know any good space sims for PC that aren't to hardware intensive? My peasant laptop can't run Elite so that's out the window.
X3 maybe
>>321480440
This is sort of random, but have you ever tried running Space Engine on your machine? By the way, what are your specs?
>>321480440
X3 Albion Prelude, or the older X3
>>321480593
Nothing impressive, and I don't have laptop on me at the moment to check. What's space engine?
>>321480440
sorry elite:dangerous died when horizons released
the devs literally pulled a Planetary Annihilation
E:D is dead
No Man's Sky might be interesting for a bit but will get boring
Star citizen...not sure about that one
>>321480440
>good space sims
ayy lmao that's ED out the window already
X3 TC & AP are your best bet but they're incredibly demanding to learn i.e. expect to watch 2+ hours of video tutorials on youtube before you can do anything. If SPACE is all that matters just roll with space engine for $0.
>>321480782
Not a fan of the pricing plans they have but it's understandable. No Man's just seems flashy but won't offer much besides what's been shown and SC looks really cool but I fear whether or not the game will ever be finished.
>>321480730
It's not really what I would classify as a game, but it's a scientifically accurate universe simulator that allows your to travel across the known universe, land on planets, etc. It has almost all of the known planets, stars, galaxies, etc, and also has a bunch of randomly generated ones. It really is a cool thing to mess around in, even if it doesn't run too well. I'd give it a shot.
>>321480440
Dumbest thread ever.
Delete it and come back with your specs.
>inb4 not your personal army /b/tards
Interstellar Rift
>tfw played the alpha for like 5 minutes and got the game for free when it came to steam
>>321481043
Same
>>321481043
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>321480782
ED died when it was dumped out of beta into 1.0 tbqh w/ u
>>321480976
BTW, Space Engine is totally free, so it's not like you'd be taking a risk.
>>321481219
Look man, I just wanted the name of some space sims. Just point me in the right direction and I'll figure out specs, I don't need someone to hold my hand through that.
>>321480440
Consider looking into Evochron Mercenary.
>>321481486
Not that it's really a Space Sim, but have you ever played FTL?
>>321481486
freespace 2 open
>>321480843
nigga what, x3 tc is literally boot up and play easy, what the fuck are you on about
>>321481486
Freespace 2 Open, Starlancer Freelancer, Wing Commander, the original Elites.
Basically anything before 2005.
Dude, if you really mean space sim, Kerbal Space Program is the shit
>>321483213
Surprised this is the first guy to say it. You can still play KSP on potato settings and it's a fantastic game.
>>321481286
FIDELITY
Wait wrong game
>>321482420
daym u a genious den
So what's the problem with elite dangerous anyways? I keep seeing people say it but no one elaborates..
>>321485986
Mile wide inch deep.
>>321486141
Quality post senpai
>>321485986
>violated kickstarter promises
>online-only
>launched with a fraction of the promised content
>$200 season pass
>extremely shallow simulation aspects (it took them a year to patch supply and demand exhaustion alone)
>player progression based purely on buying larger ships
>ships that offer marginal benefits cost up to 50x more than their closest alternative
>developers are primarily focused on disabling easy methods of earning money
>no guild system planned ever
>50% of gameplay is loading screens as you warp between instanced systems/planets/areas
>Latest expansion, which allows you to land on ONLY zero-atmosphere bodies, costs $60
>etc.
>etc.
>etc.
>also the vocal community is made of redditors and dads who applaud all of the above and continually for better ships to be made weaker and PVP to be made harder to engage in.
I am spore-levels of disappointed by ED. They've made about 1/6 of a game and appear to be planning to sell us the other 5/6 1/6 at a time for $60 a pop.
>>321486818
They made it always online in the worst possible way as well, peer to peer
So the NPC AI will never get better and combat logging can never be fixed because there's no real servers
>>321484201
I got u covered fampaiV I S I O N
>>321486818
It was so damn enjoyable at first for me personally because I love the idea of space exploration but I have to agree with all your points, especially when you say the vocal community is based around dad's and redditors. Simple fact is,the people who praise the game today are those who played the original Elite series and I think frontier wanted to specifically tailor to those players. These larger than conceivable space games that are starting to pop out have all set very high expectations for what's to come (except for No Man's Sky, no offense to those who are excited for it but it seems like a rather what you see is what you get and their not putting out vlogs, hyping up what's to come. In fact I commend no man's sky for that. Or maybe they have idk I don't follow the game) and the major issue there is the hype built around the game is all based on the statement of "what's to come" rather than what's already presented. I dont believe that's how you want to present your game initially but sadly that's what we have. At the same time it presents an interesting thought, if we were to just jump ahead idk two years from now, where would the game be? Would it have failed long ago or would we be landing on Earth like worlds, exploring the interiors of our ships and space stations, walking around on planets rather than using a scarab. No one could know until then but of course another thought to consider is that Frontier and the guys developing No Man's and Star Citizen are the first to tackle the space sim on this scale (to my knowledge). These devs all deserve a pat on the back for effort, this isn't your yearly shooter after all. Truth be told, just give me micro-transactions already (yup I spoke the unholy words, kys, right?)
>>321488905
Cont. I'm done with the grind, I've been in an ASP for months and I'm sick of it. Well idk they'd probably just sell the ships themselves vs just letting you buy credits and then it's DCS or whatever it's called where you need to buy new planes and they'll range in price going as high as a $60 game. Blah I just rambled on for too long, probably contradicted myself somewhere in here too. Anywho, who's up to start a petition
to plead Frontier to halt development and get there shit together?
>>321480782
>SC looks really cool but I fear whether or not the game will ever be finished.
Guess what.
It doesn't have a publisher.
https://youtu.be/69ck049Bg_I
Oh and how about ship design in Elite? "Oh boy can't wait to see what this new imperial cutter will look like,probably won't be able to afford it but still excited"
>ends up looking like an overgrown clipper -_-
Like wtf Star Citizen has such cool and intricate designs for ships while elite hasn't released a ship that actually look distinguishable from any other currently in game. And one thing that really pisses me off is the only entertaining factor in the game for me personally (which is combat, bounty hunting) has such radical price jumps for ships. Federation has all the good combat ships and wtf is wrong with a clipper? Such a low priced combat ship yet it'll cost you an arm and a leg to get it A-rated. I hate that, you get your ship but now you have to grind out even longer to get it fitted the way you want? And why does it seem like ships overall effectiveness is based on size? Well I suppose I could answer that, bigger ship bigger modules but what if I want to use a good looking combat ship like an eagle? NO, ship progression is based solely on the idea of playing with one ship for X amount of time then buying the next as soon as you get the creds. That's fucking terrible progression and I honestly have no clue how that problem could be remedied!!
