I've never seen people so obsessed in arguing with people so obsessed by a game that they supposedly hate and have no intention of playing.
The funny part is that most of the posters in this thread, have SC packages and are backers.
I've never seen people so obsessed in arguing with people so obsessed by a game that they supposedly hate and have no intention of playing.
Oh and I should note that if you don't claim to be 100% accurate, you can just get away with set yaw/roll/pitch forces instead of trying to simulate individual thrusters, and just animate the thrusters to roughly correspond with what the ship is doing. You know, what Elite is doing. It's cheating, but so is Star Citizen's 90-starsystem galaxy.
If you want realistic physics you won't beat Kerbal or Orbiter anyway.
Exactly, but no...he had to go "uber realistic" route and then, ironically, fail to deliver the desired results
I mean, who cares about that anyway if the ship handling sucks ?
Notice how the small supply ship at the beginning, using pitch and roll to land in the larger ship at the beginning? Yeah, that's not how the ships fly...
There are lot of small production most relying depending on PCG without SC
ED is more of the big ones. But SC is league higher.
But most argument against SC are based what common in small productions.
Yeah that's gonna be the cinematic stuff which is of course nothing like the actual game. Then again, Elite Dangerous made the same mistake.
But, I have a complaint to make about that presentation:
The ship interiors looked okay (not super amazing, but okay), but everything else?
And read those youtube comments:
"I love the animation quality, everyone seems so alive."
"It is also cool to remember this is a ship, not a level."
Am I somehow getting a different video than those people?
Is that Mr Bean?
Well disregard the video quality, but the animations and models were pretty terrible. When the little ship comes in to land in the beginnig there's zero realtime shadows. Character hair keeps popping in and out. It's quite a mess. I know this is a work in progress but I just hope this is not indicative of the final product.
One thing I don't get: People are somehow amazed by this. Criticism is met with "well it's pre-alpha/alpha/not done yet" and other such explanations. So which is it? You can't have both!
Hey guys,
Just wanted to chirp in here as I've been pushing our pipeline forward.
So you guys are aware we produced 15 MORE characters than Ryse shipped with, in about 4 months (faces). Having worked at Crytek and on Ryse stuff I have a very good idea of the time each of these characters usually gets and comparing up against Ryse won't bring us out on top quite yet as we are far from completed (and thus why you don't have SQ42 in your hands!)
The main thing is that most faces takes about a year to complete perfect. You are seeing Bishop who got only a few weeks compared to a year of work.
The other very obvious (but overlooked fact) that the comparisons to Ryse are a bit skewed because most of the cutscenes are pre-rendered (not real time) and in fact we used a different technology (called Cinebox) to render the cutscene videos for Ryse back at Crytek.
So keep in mind SC will run in REAL TIME with the cutscene rendering on your PC not before hand so that there is zero texture shock between cutscene and gameplay.
The best indication you'll have right now of the quality we are reaching for is Bishop who still as of now is about 3/4 complete with very little time for subtle polish quite yet. This is why we are releasing those guys in 2016I'd be happy to have you guys compare to other released games once we are released
until then its a bit early! Even at this stage though it's not far off and the tech is identical, if not further, than Ryse was already.
I'd like to note to for Morrow tour the lighting can really hurt the scenes, you are seeing many cutscenes in Ryse that we poured over the lighting and rendering of for hours and hours on end, where as in Morrow tour this is all in game real time moving around with very little pre canned cinematics, much harder to get right and just takes time. We like to show you guys where we are at as of now though, but expect much more polish and even more gorgeous things to come.
The pipeline is awesome and we've made this so fast to cut the time to produce these down to weeks instead of years so you're seeing alot of quantity over quality at this exact moment.
Bishop was indeed an achievement point as it is "feature complete" meaning it's got all the tech and used the full pipeline that was developed and is the highest tier of character we will have to contend with. It's a huge achievement just as most might know feature complete doesn't at all mean finishedWe call it look dev that comes next. Essentially tuning each piece so that it sings and includes ships and lighting especially.
We big battle we have is keeping consitency between environments, ships and now characters. Its important though different pipelines get used that they all react to shading the same and exist in the same "pbr scheme" as the rest of the assets. Inconsistency of assets is what you guys are seeing mostly (meaning asset does different things under different lighting conditions etc..) The only fix for that, is the fun part of our jobs which is polish![]()
It goes both ways. The developer is able to use it as a crutch until release by shouting "it's unfinished!" at every criticism. Don't like the flight model? "It's unfinished!" Don't like the Sq42 Bishop speech? "It's unfinished!" Don't like the social module? "It's unfinished!"If you watch the presentation itself I think Chris mentions couple of times that animations, models, etc. are still unfinished. I don't see any problems with that.Star Citizen is being developed very openly and unfortunately it seems to backfire in a sense people are able to bash unfished project.What comes to flight model next ATV should include an interview with Calix who talks about and shows a demo of _first_ upcoming flight model update.
Look who's talking!
It goes both ways. The developer is able to use it as a crutch until release by shouting "it's unfinished!" at every criticism. Don't like the flight model? "It's unfinished!" Don't like the Sq42 Bishop speech? "It's unfinished!" Don't like the social module? "It's unfinished!"
In some cases it's true: what we're seeing *isn't* the intended final product. However, some of it *must* be pretty much final by now, surely? I've always preferred the way that Frontier have communicated feature completion -- for example, when questioned about the flight model, Mike Evans would always point out that it's the result of internal playtesting, they're happy with how it plays and while open to tweaking it around the edges it was pretty much final. Not everyone liked it, but you're never going to please everyone all the time and that's something CIG could learn from.
PTU 1.3.0 Changelog:
- The fish tank in all current Hangars has received appearance updates.
Today the PTU 1.3.0 has been released here are a few images and videos from the new patch.