Blastoff! No Man’s Sky Patches Keep Flowing

Those industrious spacefolk at Hello Games popped another No Man’s Sky [official site] patch out over the weekend, this one fixing several crashes, dealing with corrupted save files, and stopping players from respawning stranded on a space station with a busted ship. Yep, this means they’ve also shared patch notes revealing what their patches have fixed. Hello say that “these fixes should remedy around 70% of our current support requests” and they’re also working on another patch, which should enter testing today.

“Right now the team is fully focused on categorising and fixing support issues in order of priority, based on the number of people they are affecting,” Hello said in Saturday’s Steam post. “The information and crash dumps you’ve posted have been indispensable in helping us track down and fix these issues.”

They also share patch notes for the past week’s three updates, detailing changes including performance improvements, support for more CPUs and GPUs, fixes for a variety of crashes, help for people getting shot down and stuck under the terrain as they crashed, making corrupted save files loadable, and so on.

Hello worked on the fourth update over the weekend (bless their tired little hearts!) and it should be in testing today. They’re focused on fixing and helping now but say “Once all our support requests have been answered then we can begin improving the game with new features.”

Say, gang, what sort of – realistic, achievable – features are you hoping might follow?


  1. Crimsoneer says:

    I’m still clinging to the hope the silly planetary flight model is a design decision and not a technical one, and that they’ll offer an actual option at somepoint. Having to turn my ship upside down to target landing pads is…silly.

    • xcession says:

      I’m pretty sure that it _is_ a design decision and is therefore _less_ likely to be addressed. Their vision for the game is that it’s a low-effort explore-athon. Anything requiring more effort of the user would be contrary to the design, so it still seems unlikely to me that they’d make it more complex.

      I also suspect the lower resources required to make flight so simple was also a huge convenience for their launch dates, which leaves a glimmer of hope that it could be improved in patches.

      The trouble is it would make them look even more incompetent to add such a clearly missing mechanic as a patch, so to label simple flight as a design issue is quite a convenient excuse.

    • GenialityOfEvil says:

      They don’t really need to change the flight model. Just fix the UI element that’s supposed to show up when you’re in range of the pad. It does come up occasionally.

      • Premium User Badge

        selkcip says:

        Your ship hovers as it lands so they could at least fix my biggest frustration which is “landing area not clear” “no shit you didn’t land when I told you to…” by having the ship stop immediately when you hit the land button.

        • GenialityOfEvil says:

          That is annoying, especially when it’s not clear because of one rock, but the game’s perfectly happy to land on top of a concrete plant. I hope they just remove the artificial altitude barrier and let us fly as low as we want. I found an amazing world with huge canyons and cliffs but the game made my fly above them.

          • xcession says:

            It’s a slippery slope though. The more freedom you get the more the experience heads towards the uncanny valley and the more work is involved to climb out of the valley towards a satisfactory experience: If you can fly at any altitude you can hit things. If you want to avoid hitting things, people might demand you can shoot things out of your path etc etc. Collision detection, hitboxes, impact physics, damage models blah blah blah.

            I can totally see why it’s limited, even if it is a horrid experience.

          • GenialityOfEvil says:

            The game already allows you to deform the terrain, but they arbitrarily limit it to grenades, so the issue is one of CPU performance rather than design.

          • Someoldguy says:

            It may be pure happenstance, but after the latest update my ship does seem to make more effort to land near a landing beacon rather than plop down 50 metres short. However I also landed on a really tall plant(?) for the first time recently too, though, so it’s definitely still far from perfect.

    • drinniol says:

      You could just take ten of each of most of the common elements, land nearby and build a bypass chip. I found that most times where I ‘missed’ the pad, another ship was approaching first. In the big trading centres it never happens unless I’m way off my timing.

    • Premium User Badge

      Qazinsky says:

      Yeah, the flying is a bugbear of mine in this game. Flying along at normal speed and something pops into view just as I pass it by. Was it something worth landing at? Heck if I know, I can’t tilt my ship at the angle needed to see. Anyone now seeing my attempts to discern what’s under me think that I am flying drunk as my ship turns upside down and starts to circle whILE the pilot is yelling “WHY CAN’T I SEE YOU?!”

      I feel like being able to move the head a bit irrespective of the ship would help. And maybe hovering.

      • JohnGreenArt says:

        “I feel like being able to move the head a bit irrespective of the ship would help.”

        I don’t know if there are keyboard controls, but if you play with a controller you can move your head around in the cockpit while flying without changing fight direction (you can’t move your head in the ship when landed, though.)

    • aggr08 says:

      I’d like to see the ship/space side of things fleshed out. A better planetary flight model, including ground collisions, and being able to use the Phase Beam and Photon Cannon on the ground. Have them both destroy ground like the grenades. I mean, why not? You’re not going to be ruining a planet for another player. Spawn sentinel ships if you get a bit too crazy. Makes no sense right now that your ship’s weapons have zero impact on anything planetside but can still be used.

    • GG7 says:

      You shouldn’t have to do any radical maneuvering to get your ship to land on those single pads at the various trade equipped outposts.

      Just slow down and watch for the four white arrows appear on the pad itself, and once you see those, just hit the Square button and the ship should auto-land on the pad.

      Since I have been focusing a great deal of my time on collecting and selling various rare items and stuff, these single pad outposts are my primary landing choices, and I have never had to roll upside down to land on them.

      As for the flight model itself… Its best to simply accept the fact that the game uses a rather arcady control scheme for the ships and not get too bent out of shape wishing it was something more advanced.

      If more challenge and realism is what you are after in your spaceship flying, then “Elite Dangerous Horizons” is the game you should be playing. ;) While it lacks the thrill and variety found on NMS’s LIVING planets, it has about the best flight model currently available in the genre.

    • baidi says:

      Just woke up to see this released:

      link to

      Will try it this evening. It may be the droids we’re looking for.

  2. -Spooky- says:

    Just hit E and the ship goes to the landing pad, with auto landing. What did i miss here?

    • Crimsoneer says:

      You need to point at the pad for that. Which you can’t, because pointing at the floor isn’t an option, without doing a 360 flip and pointing downwards. As far as I can tell. You end up having to approach the base slowly and guesstimate when you’re near.

      • Harlander says:

        You can point the nose down further if you hold on to the brakes, in my experience. It’s enough to target landing pads (sometimes).

        Personally I’d prefer some sort of pop-up landing camera that’d show you your expected landing site and lock on to pads and such.

      • Koozer says:

        I never even knew you could land by points at a pad. I always just fly over them and hit land, that’s it.

      • syndrome says:

        Or… You could build a mental image of the location in your head, overfly the pad slowly, then press E right above it. It works for me 99% of the time.

      • PancakeWizard says:

        “You end up having to approach the base slowly “

        That’s what you’re supposed to do. Hold the break button down, and your nose dips and you see the help crosshair. It’s not required to land though. Unless you’re miles away or another ship has claimed the pad, the ship just lands on the pad if you’re in the vague proximity.

        It’s really not difficult when you can slow to an almost-stop instantly from full throttle.

      • GG7 says:

        You don’t need to point anything at the pad. It is based on proximity, not targeting.

        The more landings you do at these single pads, the better you will become at judging the correct height and distance from the pad. I don’t even look for the four white arrows anymore. I just know from experience when I am at the right position to engage the auto-land function and down onto the pad she goes every single time. ;)

        Your comments just indicate to me that you need a bit more practice. And your incorrect assumptions on how the landing process works is adding additional work to your landings. Work that isn’t required at all.

    • DeepFried says:

      You only know if your ship is locked on to the pad by being able to see the crosshair locked on it and because you cannot point your ships nose down very far if you’re close to the ground, it can be very had to tell if you’re locked on or not.

      And frankly, I’ve played the game for 40 hours, and i’ve only just noticed that there is a landing crosshair – so not a clear mechanic at all. Up to that point my success rate for landing on pads was about 1 in 3.

      • purdin20 says:

        I don’t know what you guys are talking about. As long as I’m any where in the vicinity of a landing pad I initiate landing and it more than goes out of its way to land my craft. Never done any of this locking on or tilting my ship stuff you’re talking about.

        • GG7 says:

          Exactly! Give this man a gold star! ;)

          Those having trouble getting their ship onto the 100% of the time just need to spend a few minutes doing landings and takeoffs at a single pad installation until they can engage the landing system by feel and land on the pad every single time.

          Use THE FORCE dudes! lol! ;) It really becomes “a feel thing”.

          You’ll see. :)

          • Tikigod says:

            Which is why from a design perspective it’s incredibly broken and needs to be addressed.

          • GG7 says:

            “Tikigod says:

            Which is why from a design perspective it’s incredibly broken and needs to be addressed.”

            Meh… Its really not that big a deal once you have gotten the hang of it as I described previously. If you take a break from your normal gameplay and practice some touch and gos, you should be fine using the current system as-is.

            Personally, the game has far more glaring issues that should be addressed long before they need to change the way pad based auto-landings work.

  3. Captain Narol says:

    I did not have any big bugs so far, but the PC version obviously need polish considering all the people who have had problems.

    I’d be happy if they could add a system map and a planet map in addition of the galactic map, that’s quite lacking…

    Maybe coupled with some form of planetary autopilot (with autolanding on station pads ?) as planets are quite huge and going from Point A to point B takes too much time even in ship.

    • Q11_ says:

      System map would be great.

      In regards to travel time in ship on planets, you can easily make a 30 min travel time go down to 1-2 min, by going higher up (partly into space) where you can fly a great deal faster. Especially with boosters.

    • DeepFried says:

      My biggest problems have been terrain issues when landing. Yesterday for example I landed right in front of a sheer cliff.. on landing you get out of your ship and move forward a bit automatically… this put me into the cliff which then caused be to fall through the game world.

      Another time I landed with an arch right in front, on taking off (during the automatic part) the ship got stuck in the arch and self destructed.

      • GG7 says:

        I’ve noticed that the system seems to have trouble landing you next to Monoliths and Ruins, often saying “area not clear” or whatever it says.

        Even when there is a big open area next to these sites, the ship either keeps flying until you get the above message, or it lands you up on a ridge, or worse, balanced on some rock or whatever.

        The landing system obviously needs some additional attention! They need to put an end to these often ridiculous landing locations the automated system chooses so much of the time.

  4. Godwhacker says:

    Well here’s what I’d like:

    Increased draw distance
    Dedicated button for hiding the interface for screenshots
    Custom markers when planetside, and the ability to filter which markers are shown
    A flight mode that allows crashing and hovering
    Fewer bloody settlements
    Better inventory management
    Movable ship upgrades
    Option to mute the suit


    Think that’s it

    • Kreeth says:

      That’s a good list – I’d love to have the ability to place markers on planets: as it is it’s a massive pain in the arse/near impossible to save at a waypoint, leave a load of stuff there (say if your inventory’s full, which it always is), go away, sell stuff, then come back and pick up all the good things.

      Of course, you can always just fly about and pick up very similar stuff somewhere else I guess. I’d love to be able to mark e.g. a particularly nice view or something as well.

      Screenshot mode that actually has a button to take a screenshot rather than having to run Fraps or something is such an obvious thing in this game it amazes me they didn’t put it in previously as well.

    • DeepFried says:

      good start. Specifically on inventory management I think they need to remove the click+hold mechanic, on PC a simple click should do fine. Beyond that there isn’t a vast amount I would change; no mans sky is pretty bare bones gameplay wise so i’d say micro managing the inventory is actually the primary gameplay loop, you can’t mess with it too much (making it less obnoxious) without removing all challenge from the game.

    • melnificent says:

      I’d just like it to stop alternating between crashes to desktop and hard locking my system, depending on why it’s crashed.

    • JohnGreenArt says:

      “Option to mute the suit”

      I’d just like the option to customize when the suit gives warnings. Like a checklist: “Give warnings at: 75%, 50%, 25%.”

      And the choice between a vocal warning or a beep/buzz alert. Like, just give me a buzz to indicate my inventory is full. A ding when units received. Stuff like that. Especially since the last one sounds like “Eunuchs Perceived.”

      Some of these are sort of getting fixed with mods, which is great. Other options might be more complex.

      I’d love for their to be a ship/suit/tool upgrade that automatically refills meters so long as required elements are in your inventories. Having to manually refill ship shields in a menu during a dogfight is absurd. I get the idea that at low levels it *should* be inconvenient. That’s the point of upgrades, after all. But add an upgrade to make it automatic (or AT LEAST a key/controller button) and then a warning when you have no resources left for charging.

    • GG7 says:

      DITTO on that list!

      You basically nailed my own biggest gripes.

      The draw distance and immersion breaking POP-IN is my single biggest issue with the game. The PS4 is by far the worst for this annoying behavior, but even on my VERY HIGH end gaming rig with all settings maxed, I still see far too much pop-in and actual draw in, where mountains and terrain details are waiting to appear until you are practically right on top of them!

      I’m enjoying the heck out of the game as a whole, but NMS has got to have the absolute worst draw distance and pop-in issues of any game I have played in the last 10 years.

      Considering everything Sean Murray had said about their custom built rendering engine and the speed at which this engine could spit out terrain and whatnot, I was not prepared for anything close to what I am seeing in the actual game.

      The PS4 version is downright terrible in this regard, and even my high end gaming rig is unable to provide a fully rendered vista while in motion, even with all graphics settings maxed out.

      I certainly hope this is their #1 priority after bug and crash fixes. If anything ultimately removes my motivation to continue playing and supporting NMS, it will be if this draw distance issue is allowed to remain unaddressed for much longer.

  5. drinniol says:

    There is an excellent article on NMS by Paul Kilduff-Taylor of Mode 7 games; link to

    • Billzor says:

      Thanks for the link. For anyone else interested in reading it, go in knowing that it’s a personal blog from a developer targeted (I assume) at other developers.

      I liked the “Blue Sky Lining” and “Wells of Infinite Sadness” parts. These offered insights into how the business of video games works.

    • aepervius says:

      In the very end he comes off as very apologist. The biggest problem with the release was not cut feature. The biggest problem was cut feature without telling beforehand. I think it is fair use to copy the reason he cited for the sake of discussion :

      You don’t know you have to cut something until very close to release; there isn’t time to do a press release due to needing to coordinate with platform-holders”

      You have promised or half-promised a feature to a publisher and you don’t know if you can implement it, so you have to keep quiet about it until the last minute

      You realise that a very small feature makes a portion of the game rubbish and you make the difficult decision to cut it; having previously over-invested, a loud but small facet of game’s community will massively misinterpret the cutting of this feature and cause a giant fuss about it, overshadowing the rest of your message and ruining your launch”

      On the other hand knowing a lot of people pre-ordered, and we are speaking of dozen maybe hundred of million worth of sale, one does wonder if from all of that the SOLE reason the feature cut were not mentionned was simply : money. You can refund a pre-order before the sale, afterward it is more difficult. ex: play 2 hours of the game on steam and you are SOL. I may be cynical , but i think in the very end it was all about money, and none fo the apologetic reason above.

      Advertising feature, and then cutting them before release smells a little bit of false advertising tho.

      • Epicedion says:

        Very apologist. There should be a correct answer to the question “if two people end up in the same place at the same time, can they do stuff together?” That’s not a question about feelings or impressions. Games are (can be) art, sure, but the players still deserve straight answers about what can and can’t be done.

        Reading down, when the guy mentions the “can you throw flashbangs” questions, he gets all self-righteously confused about the meaning behind the question. I believe the response he was grasping for so inelegantly was “no.” (or “yes”, I have no idea, I haven’t played it)

        • GG7 says:

          I never found out the ultimate explanation from HG about what happened with those two players who couldn’t see each other.

          At first blush the symptom was a text book example of an “instancing” issue, and considering how infrequently my own game was actually connected to the NMS servers on that day and for days afterward, if the servers were down, or one of the players was not actually connected to the NMS servers at the time, then of course they wouldn’t be able to see each other!

          Elite Dangerous has all the multi-player features that haters of NMS wrongly assumed this game would have, despite Murray stating over and over that PvP and Co-Op WAS NOT in the game… But even though ED has the ability for two players to see each other, it is very often not possible because of instancing issues.

          Ask anyone who has played ED with a group of friends and if they are being honest, they will tell you how often everyone ends up in different instances where they are in the same exact location but don’t see each other.

  6. Michael Manning says:


    • Spuzzell says:

      Thanks for taking the time off from your campaign to post this, Mr. Trump.

      • Michael Manning says:

        I have the best ideas, I’m a good game designer

        • Chairman_Meow says:

          Let me tell you, we have designers, good designers, the best designers, designing things as we speak. People are saying that we botched the launch. Not me, I don’t know if we botched the launch, but other people – people in the industry, top people, are talking about it. I’m just asking questions here. I’m just trying to find answers. Did we botch the launch? I don’t know. But people are saying things. No one wants to answer the questions. Legitimate, classy questions. Sad!
          Also: China!

    • GenialityOfEvil says:

      I want people to stop writing in all-caps. Also, I’d like a pony, and a fire truck, and a…

  7. Sp4rkR4t says:

    If they could get rid of the awful texture issues when flying low above a planet that would be grand, been a very long time since I’ve seen a game draw itself in such a bloody ugly way.

    They need to rethink the flying over planets as well, I know it’s intended to be as easy as possible but it’s more of a hinderance top exploration than anything else.

  8. aircool says:

    A flight model like X-Wing. A sensible inventory system. Hugely reduced grind. Not upscaled 720. Ship customisation. A continuous powersource rather than the current system of using elements to recharge/re-arm everything; power management (like X-Wing). More variety of rocks and plants. More graphic options (like removing filters). Optimisation. Optimisation. Optimisation. More variety in settlements; military bases, towns, cities (within reason), industrial areas. Waypoints. A compass. Perhaps even a map of some sort, at least one that draws coastlines, major geological features and shows every point you have saved and uploaded. Less Lizardcats with four front legs. A really good galactic map for navigation. More and easily accessable planetary information etc… Better enemy AI. More enemies. Faction Wars. Missions. Removing the fucking letterbox moments. Aliens speak faster. More stuff. More stuff. Asteroid belts vice asteroids everywhere.

    Perhaps even a co-op mode?

    • milligna says:

      So a different game by experienced developers instead of the “Joe Danger” people.

      • TheAngriestHobo says:

        I found it odd that in the run up to all of this, so few people mentioned that such a huge and ambitious space exploration game was being made by a small company with literally two releases under their belt – both of them largely forgettable platformers.

        • Baines says:

          It was mentioned a fair amount.

          I think it is just that the information was lost in the ballooning hype. The story that people wanted to hear wasn’t about potentially inexperienced developers making a big game. People just wanted to know more about the game itself, to see screenshots and videos, to talk about the tech, and all the rest of that stuff.

          One could even argue that it quickly reached a point where just saying something like “This is an ambitious title for a handful of inexperience developers” was being overly negative and unfairly critical for a title that looked as if it was progressing okay. (And simply being perceived as being negative increasingly became an issue as parts of the game’s fanbase became increasingly protective and demanding.)

        • GG7 says:

          The company that made NMS may be new, but the actual developers are all seasoned vets of the industry. Sean Murray was the lead on the BURN OUT series from Criterion where he worked for I believe 7 years.

          The other developers also worked for Criterion with Sean, or came from other large development houses who also worked on major AAA releases from big game companies.

      • fish99 says:

        Most of the bad design decisions could have been avoided by testing the game more and earlier.

        • GG7 says:

          They got death threats when the game was delayed for 6 weeks earlier this year. Do you honestly think the community who are all now armchair quarterbacking the launch and pontificating on what HG should have done, would have been cool with another major delay?

          Come on! Get real! The game needed to come out when it did, and it is unfortunate how release dates now rule the entire game development process.

          Its easy in hind sight to point to this or that and say things should have been done a different way, but just a week ago everyone was up in arms and freaking out when the PC version got delayed by THREE DAYS!

          Like I said… GET REAL!

          • fish99 says:

            Testing is a normal part of game development, or it’s supposed to be. It’s how you make your game good. You’re not supposed to take on a QA team on the same day the game releases.

            Also testing the game throughout development can actually save you from wasting time developing bad systems that end up getting scrapped and/or replaced. The more you test the less time you waste. So no, doing development right would not have caused more delays, and it would have lead to a better game.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      I’d love X-wing power management, but I’m happy with the flight model which is very Rogue Squadron.

      • GG7 says:

        I wouldn’t insult NMS by comparing the flight model to Rogue Squadron. That game had a terrible flight model, that was basically a terrestrial model shoehorned into a space game, complete with the inability to fly in three dimensions.

        Instead you had an artificial horizon that the ship was forced to conform to. Even when in space, you couldn’t roll your ship and fly upside down, or at any other orientation but this artificial horizon they built into the game.

        While I played a lot of RS because it was basically the only console based space game in existence at the time, but I totally HATED the way the ships flew. Not so bad when doing surface based missions, but the missions against Star Destroyers and whatnot was an awful space combat experience for me.

        At least you can roll and fly upside down with NMS ships despite how arcady the controls behave as a whole. Its certainly not Elite Dangerous, but that is what I have ED around for in the first place! When I want a true space sim combat experience, Elite Dangerous is your best option and likely will remain so for some time to come.

  9. teethslapper says:

    Was the memory leak included in this patch? It’s pretty annoying having to restart the game every so often because the game takes a dump and the fps drops to 10.

  10. DantronLesotho says:

    I want a planet system map, a planetary map, and I want a compass. I would also like for it to show all the elements necessary to build complex things (ex: Building a warp cell you need X thamium, Y vapor, etc). Factorio does a fantastic job of this. If I had those features I would be immensely satisfied. I understand that this game is about exploration and getting lost, but I am capable of getting lost whilst using a map for when I want to get un-lost. If there is a spaceport that I can go back to for trading, I want to be able to set that as a marker that I can easily identify and return to. An item like a “return warp” would be very helpful too, like the magic mirror in Terraria.

    Or give me a pocket trader device so I don’t have to carry around so many grahgrah’s. And make those items stack.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      Even better, I forget which games do it, but some let you (for example) craft tier 3 stuff, just if you have the tier 1 resources (and thus already knows you have enough for tier 2).

      So instead of crafting metal plates, then electron vapour, then antimatter, then a fuel cell, then adding fuel cell to the jump drive, you would just click jump drive, and it would check if you had enough resources for the lot in one go…

  11. Someoldguy says:

    I’m taking my time exploring the stories told through the monoliths and trying to avoid spoilers, but I have picked up that people are underwhelmed by the “endings”. I’d definitely those to be tweaked so that you feel more agency and satisfaction on completing the Atlas and centre of the galaxy goals. I’ve had a lot of history from the Vy’keen perspective, but it would be good if it eventually resolves what the progenitor species intended, the purpose of the sentinels etc.

  12. Arkhaine says:

    Hmmm, the realistic/achievable features I would like to be added would be the ones they f***ing said would be in the game in the first place that they removed… Actual distinctions between the “classes” of ships, larger scale battle possibilities, orbits that work, combat that poses at least a hint of a challenge, controlled lower altitude flight, freighters/battleships that actually fly, etc., etc….

  13. syndrome says:

    And nobody has yet factored in the possibility that those “fireworks” glitches around monoliths are in fact what you see when you “encounter other players” …

    It’s just a gimmick, good for the marketing, and otherwise UNPROVABLE, and giving players a good objective reason for a wild goose chase, endless speculation and good ol’ controversy.

    But only if any of it worked. Their own eastern eggs are so buggy, they didn’t spurred intended curiosity at all. People outright dismissed these as anything worth exploring due to the game’s state.

    • Roald Hoffmann says:

      Probably why you hear a lot more about The Western omelette.

  14. Epicedion says:

    My overall issue with the game is that planets aren’t really very life-like. They do give a really good idea of what fractally generated terrain is, though. Everything is lumpy. Nothing’s ever flat. Features appear in weird pockets.

    Also, is anyone freaked out by the giant gold balls and silicate monoliths?

  15. bartman says:

    I’d still like Valve to accept that it can take more than two hours to establish that games of this nature can be flawed and cough up a refund.

  16. jimmyplaysdrums says:

    I’m enjoying the game overall. My main gripe is the lack of planetary map that shows where I have been already. It would be nice if you could open a top-view zoomed out map with most of the planet obscured except for the places you’ve already visited and marked. There also needs to be a way to set a marker so you can come back somewhere like a crashed ship for when you don’t have the resources to fix it yet but you want to come back later.

    • GG7 says:

      Totall agree!

      The star map needs a complete overhaul! You should be able to easily retrace your steps in the game and be able to chart your path through the galaxy.

      There are many systems with planets I barely got a chance to explore and fully intended to re-visit before I realized how freaking hard it was to get back to systems you had left behind you.

      You can get back to some of your previous discoveries by messing around with the FREE MODE and WAYPOINT MODES, while using the SEARCH feature. By playing around with this the other night I was suddenly seeing many of the systems I had been to a few days earlier, and after I marked one and warped there, all the surrounding discovered systems were once again accessible to me.

      This is a very good reason NAME your SYSTEMS and not leave them with their default names. Its much easier to pick them out on the map if you use a naming convention that is different than the randomly generated names the game game uses.

  17. Nauallis says:

    Feels more polished already. Played for 8 hours straight on Sunday, no crashes, no glitches. Expanding the inventory, that really does help.

  18. Octane says:

    Stuff I’d like:
    – A planet map that allows the player to add/remove waypoints and shows which areas have been explored
    – A better landing system. Maybe when you initiate the landing, have the ship hover in place and give the player a top-down view so they can choose where they want to land?
    – More variety in the “puzzles”. Solving the same number sequences gets awfully repetitive.
    – I’d like the option to modify my ship in terms of look/color etc.
    – Space combat needs an overhaul, right now it’s painfully dull
    – Change the crafting system so lower tier recipes get completed automatically as long as you have the needed ressources. So for a warp cell you don’t have to go through the whole suspension fluid –> electron vapor –> antimatter –> warp cell sequence every time.
    – Make the ships inventory accessible for trading, when it’s landed on the landing pad.

    • PancakeWizard says:

      “Make the ships inventory accessible for trading, when it’s landed on the landing pad.”

      It is.

  19. CriticalX13 says:

    I think 2 things would be really good to patch and fix all the problems: 1) Make the intro skipable, that whole star field zooming in, 2) Drop the price to $20

    • GG7 says:

      The intro is actually a loading screen.

      I’ve also got the game on PC, and installed on my system drive which is a Samsung 950 Pro M.2 Nvme SSD.

      When I launch NMS on that machine, the star field intro is displayed for 3 seconds and then my game is loaded from where I last saved. :)

      I always suspected that the moving star field was a loading screen, but it wasn’t until I watched the game load in off this ridiculously fast SSD that I had proof it was precisely that.

      • theslap says:

        It is definitely a loading screen but I don’t understand why my 950 SSD takes 60+ secs to load it on first run.

  20. Tikigod says:

    If they fixed the flight behaviour to remove all the enforced rules that the player has forced on them, such as being stuck to one of 3 ‘states’:

    Low Altitude
    High Altitude

    With each state having its own rails you have to fly along with differing turning and speed behaviour rules which dictate what you can and can not do with your ship and when you’re allowed to turn your ship, and in what directions are permitted ones.

    Then that would be great.

    NPCs already ignore all these rules forced on the player as anyone who has fought pirates in low or high altitude states will have easily noticed if they’re being honest. With pirates pointing straight down at the ground and flying under you only to turn up and fire into you, all the while the games going “Nope you can’t turn down. You’re on the lowest sky rail already”.

    When your ship frequently ends up stalling in the air because the terrain suddenly changes, shifting your altitude which confuses the game over what state it should be forcing on you, then you know the developers rolled out something very broken.

    • Tikigod says:

      When you go to track a target by pitching down and shift to the right, and the game then goes “Nope, don’t think that’s what I want you to do”, and instead applies a magical counterforce on your ship that forces it to pitch up and turn to the left… that’s also a stupid assed set of behaviours.

    • GG7 says:

      I wouldn’t go so far as to call the flight model being ON RAILS. There are restrictions as to how low you can go, unable to collide with objects and all the other arcady behaviors, but unlike a game on rails, you can fly “anywhere” you want to fly and if you want to do all your low altitude flying upside down, the game will let you. At least there isn’t some stupid heavy handed “auto-leveling” feature that prevents that.

      But I do agree that I would prefer to be able to fly as low as I want, and if I allow myself to fly into a mountain top, then my ship should crash into that mountain top and explode! THAT would be much more fun and bring a little bit of challenge to the flight model.

      But I know why they went for the arcady model they chose. They needed to appeal to all the casuals out there who would be losing their ships left and right if the hand holding were removed. ;)

      What I am hoping for in future feature changes and updates is that they give us an option in the controls settings or somewhere that allows us to TURN OFF all the safety stuff and perform manual or semi-manual landings and the ability to skim the surface and be able to actually fly through those holes and tunnels in the terrain that are just screaming to be flown through! ;)

      I also think that a lot of these choices were driven by the fact that the game has horrific collision detection. As in non-existent!

      Spend any amount of time observing the wild life and you will soon see animals walking right through another one as if the other creature wasn’t even there!

      This was another disappointing realization I made on day one with the PS4 version. Once I saw that, I knew that we were not going to have a very realistic and believable gaming environment in at least the launch version of NMS.

      • Tikigod says:

        There are auto-levelling aspects though, which is the main cause of the problem.

        Get altitude above a surface, then point as far down to the ground as you can you’ll notice the game immediately restricts how far you can pitch down to around a 150 degree angle toward the surface, the closer you get to the surface the more the game auto-levels your orientation to that of the horizon until the point where you can’t pitch down at all and your ship is locked into facing the horizon or upwards…. any maneuver that would cause you look below the horizon will cause all sorts of weird behaviour that defies logic.

  21. haldolium says:

    Not having technical issues, I guess I am going to just wait another year or two until they hopefully address all the missing content and features when re-releasing NMS “2.0” for the PS4.

    As expected, it became very boring very fast. Still like it’s procedural generation as such though.

  22. SireShades says:

    Would be Cool to have a kind of System/ Planetary map that generates based on what your scanner reaches, that way it doesn’t interfere with the whole “No one has been here before, there shouldn’t be a map” stuff.