Only shows that the whole "local physics grid" implementation is still half backed. I wonder if they'll ever be able to fix this. Intuitively it seems no easy task to to get robust transitions between different grids. For me that's just one more example of the bad project design. Having this "local physics grid" certainly seems nice, but the impact on gameplay is rather small - after all it's not that exciting to be a passenger and move around a ship. Given the mess this idea has caused at the expense of everything else it really seems to be a bad idea. Now i'm very curious how FDev will approach this problem.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Only shows that the whole "local physics grid" implementation is still half backed. I wonder if they'll ever be able to fix this. Intuitively it seems no easy task to to get robust transitions between different grids. For me that's just one more example of the bad project design. Having this "local physics grid" certainly seems nice, but the impact on gameplay is rather small - after all it's not that exciting to be a passenger and move around a ship. Given the mess this idea has caused at the expense of everything else it really seems to be a bad idea. Now i'm very curious how FDev will approach this problem.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Only "half-baked"? I'd say that this whole "game's" conception, implementation and production has been "fully baked" from the beginning. And I'm not talking about the "cookies and dough" type of baked, either.
Last edited:
Well, half-baked because it is working in principle, which deserves some credits. But then it also introduces abhorrent issues where everything goes literally ballistic when you transition from one grid to another.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Well, half-baked because it is working in principle, which deserves some credits. But then it also introduces abhorrent issues where everything goes literally ballistic when you transition from one grid to another.
The thing is Knight, that issue I showed in that video has been known about in the hangar since BEFORE 2.0 even existed! The very fact that it's STILL there after what, a year, two years, is indicative of just how much trouble the whole Star Citizen project appears to be in.
I mean, how can you let something like THAT persist for so long, without appearing to either fix it, or perhaps worse, not *know* how to fix it, should be ringing alarm bells amongst backers and CIG programmers alike.
Sure, i'm also very sceptical that they'll ever be able to fix these issues completely - and everything below that is unacceptable given the deadly impact of these glitches. It seems that the issues come from clipping between grids. Now getting collision detection is already hard. With these "high-fidelity" ships it's much harder.
Don't think the "local physics grids" are even enabled inside the hangar. This is just an outdated 2009 game engine failing at the task of treating a huge spaceship as a physical object.
Because it was never meant to do that. In an FPS like Crysis 2 those objects have the maximum size of something like a locker. Vehicles were always wonky in CE, but were never meant to be bigger than that re-skinned golf cart.
How is it local physics grid issue?
Trying to figure it out in my head what's going on, surely there's only one physics grid *for the ship* there.
Maybe another physics grid inside the ship but that won;t effect the ship will it?
edit: maybe outside the hangar is one grid, inside the other?
Then when the ship rotates, during rotation it's "pinned" at the ship axis, wing rotates into the outer grid, model "sets" with wing in new position then chaos ensues?
Anyway regardless rotating wing ships do look pretty cool! (even if the engine can;t cope)
Last edited:
The ship is bound to the fake physics that are keeping the citizen on the ground
Then the horrors occur as objects transit from "this way is up and your velocity relative to this plane is 0" to suddenly a new up and a new reference plane. Now with their interesting networking meaning the positions of those objects may change retrospectively there's an obscenely high chance of you suddenly moving inches instantaneously (or quicker) as you change to a new frame of reference and BOOM you've been accelerated to maximum velocity
The hangar is an offline map. Also there is no local physics grid enabled: If you manage to turn a ship upside.down, global gravity still applies I think.
The video is just showing stock Cryengine physics g out. Its predecessor did it 2007 already, just not with spaceships.
Hard not to agree- in no way SC was planned or is atm a scam or whatever - the man in charge choose wrong engine, wrong priorities, the thing is poorly managed and I bet they simply hit the technological wall since missed dead lines and still the same broken tech demo. CR as I see it will never admit the defeat and I don't think engine change is possible at the moment. They are simply stuck with something crucial in the base engine. Remember those are not facts, those are my opinions and thoughts.
INtersting stuff.
I'm wondering if there isn't some issue with how often the physics grid updates.
I mean say it updates 15 times/sec in theory an animation, like a wing rotation may have moved an object relatively far before the physics gets to do its thing. That wing rotates pretty quickly.
IANAL but I mean if say the "floor" barrier (I don;t know what the terms are) is only say a few pixels deep then the wing could transition through it before physics comes into play, and at that point it's too late since the point where the collision may have been detected in the wing/floor may have passed each other.
I dunno, I know nothing about this stuff really but given all the stuff they seem to be having to write, I wouldn't be surprised if the physics is pretty heavyweight and does not update quite as often as they'd like.
That wing rotation seems waay too fast anyway, regardless of being too fast for physics to cope.
I'm wondering if there isn't some issue with how often the physics grid updates.
I mean say it updates 15 times/sec in theory an animation, like a wing rotation may have moved an object relatively far before the physics gets to do its thing. That wing rotates pretty quickly.
IANAL but I mean if say the "floor" barrier (I don;t know what the terms are) is only say a few pixels deep then the wing could transition through it before physics comes into play, and at that point it's too late since the point where the collision may have been detected in the wing/floor may have passed each other.
I dunno, I know nothing about this stuff really but given all the stuff they seem to be having to write, I wouldn't be surprised if the physics is pretty heavyweight and does not update quite as often as they'd like.
That wing rotation seems waay too fast anyway, regardless of being too fast for physics to cope.
Last edited:
was never qualified to make a 2014 video game.
But if someone knows this and continues collecting money while deceiving others, this someone is a fraud. And the current ToS confirm that literally.
If this was being made by a publisher it would have been canned a year ago, it is clear that marketed footage is nowhere near to reality and throwing more money and hands at it is not fixing the fundamental flaws in the game. CIG is now the 6th most expensive game ever made(3rd in Development cost) and its nowhere near completion(1 tiny map of 100 star systems). Here are the stats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop
CIG are still aggressively seeking cash with ship sales of items that wont even be available at launch, they haven't even given a target funding ceiling to complete the MVP or any idea when it will be ready. The lack of respect shown to backers promised open development and transparency is astounding seeing as they have been given funding at zero interest to develop the product. If this fails it presents an enormous risk to any future crowdfunding attempts. IMO crowdfunding should not be allowed beyond 6 months of announcing a project, it allows too much scope for developers to throw money at problems instead of dealing with them in a timely and efficient manner.
All these Local Physic Grids are both handwaving and a shotgun salvo in the foot. Relying on physics everywhere is a naive way of thinking games and can only bring to have to shoehorn many things to achieve the result needed: if physics help solving many problems, they bring ton more too as by definition they bring impredictability, so they put developer out of control of certains things. Basically, you'll never find a good platformer totally relying on physics for key components, because for a platformer to be good, you have to keep control of movements, interactions with the level and enemies and such...
Someone quoted Miyamoto to justify that the more SC is late the more it'll be good. Funny, as we could use [video]http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131997/games_demystified_super_mario_.php[/video]: multiple local gravity from where the player can hop from one to another, both standard and impossible, and you know what? It's faked... Or more precisely it's carefully crafted to make and keep behaviors right, reliable, and on phase with the game design. Devs had complete control of how it's implemented, how it'll behave. Anywhere, any time. Let's not talk about networking: syncing physics behaviors between multiple machines is a very hard thing. That's why I'm very doubtful regarding their "procedural damage" on ships and large scale explosions.
That's why we have a FM meant to be of high physical fidelity but ends totally meh, ships designed like aerodynamic jets though behaving like toys and scattered by out-of-place wiggling thrusters. All of these still at best clunkily half-implemented, at worst wishful thinkings for a pre-alpha where <<use>> is flawed, and in need of a so-called "item 2.0" rework of the core asset interaction system. That's the misshapen monster you get when you think that aiming at the "most advanced technology" will surely make something great even if you don't have a robust design doc, just ideas brainstormed in front of the camera as space fans throw questions and money at the screen.
Now, for the "big evil publishers free development" argument: first I'm neither a big fan of these big publisher, I liked this argument at first, though gaming "industry" didn't wait for Messiah Roberts to show up to save gamers' asp, as the indie scene was already full steam for years when he emerged. But the crowdfunding success sure had some impact on Mr Evil Publisher. But now, as SC is still in development hell, showing both lack of skill to serve something clean and to keep dev and customer relationship open and sane, I think Mr Evil Publisher is grinning like the Cheshire Cat now rubbing his hands witnessing all this mess out of control. CR may have unintentionnally made a good job to restore confidence in Big Publishers when it's about developping an AAA. They couldn't have imagined better plan to try to undermine crowdfunding and indie development.
Someone quoted Miyamoto to justify that the more SC is late the more it'll be good. Funny, as we could use [video]http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131997/games_demystified_super_mario_.php[/video]: multiple local gravity from where the player can hop from one to another, both standard and impossible, and you know what? It's faked... Or more precisely it's carefully crafted to make and keep behaviors right, reliable, and on phase with the game design. Devs had complete control of how it's implemented, how it'll behave. Anywhere, any time. Let's not talk about networking: syncing physics behaviors between multiple machines is a very hard thing. That's why I'm very doubtful regarding their "procedural damage" on ships and large scale explosions.
That's why we have a FM meant to be of high physical fidelity but ends totally meh, ships designed like aerodynamic jets though behaving like toys and scattered by out-of-place wiggling thrusters. All of these still at best clunkily half-implemented, at worst wishful thinkings for a pre-alpha where <<use>> is flawed, and in need of a so-called "item 2.0" rework of the core asset interaction system. That's the misshapen monster you get when you think that aiming at the "most advanced technology" will surely make something great even if you don't have a robust design doc, just ideas brainstormed in front of the camera as space fans throw questions and money at the screen.
Now, for the "big evil publishers free development" argument: first I'm neither a big fan of these big publisher, I liked this argument at first, though gaming "industry" didn't wait for Messiah Roberts to show up to save gamers' asp, as the indie scene was already full steam for years when he emerged. But the crowdfunding success sure had some impact on Mr Evil Publisher. But now, as SC is still in development hell, showing both lack of skill to serve something clean and to keep dev and customer relationship open and sane, I think Mr Evil Publisher is grinning like the Cheshire Cat now rubbing his hands witnessing all this mess out of control. CR may have unintentionnally made a good job to restore confidence in Big Publishers when it's about developping an AAA. They couldn't have imagined better plan to try to undermine crowdfunding and indie development.
Last edited:
I think Roberts suffers much rather from the Dunning-Kruger effect than being a fraud. The people around him might be the ones that just care about monetizing his appeal to gamers by reinforcing his supposedly "visionary aura", than keeping him in check.
SC is based on outdated technology that was first introduced in 2009. It was still current in 2011, when the KS pitch video was made, but now it's outdated, this is the reason why it looks worse than Uncharted. Even Crytek itself moved on now.
In 2018 it will unintentionally play like something dug up by GOG, but with utterly bad performance on current hardware.
Well said.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
Let's not forget, they went through 21 (count 'em) bug fix releases to get to this level of stability with 2.4.
A shadowy meeting between all the players in Big Gaming took place many years ago. This is the transcript.
Pony Executive: "Look, we can sit here and argue, but we all know that there is an iceberg up ahead."
Newbiesoft: "The resurgence of PC gaming."
Intend Dough: "Independent games."
Pony: "Okay, two icebergs."
Electronic Artshole: "And Crowdfunding! Don't forget that!"
Pony: "Okay, three icebergs! We have three icebergs up ahead! So what do we do?"
Electronic Artshole: "What we need is a big public example of why all of those things are bad ideas. Ideas?"
Nanohard/Intend Dough/Pony (together): "LOCK DOWN FRANCHISES TO SINGLE PLATFORMS!"
Electronic Artshole: "I dunno, we still want those basement-dwelling PC nerds to give us their cash, and we have sweet deals with GPU manufacturers to force upgrades in return for kickbacks. We can't go along with that idea, not 100%"
Newbiesoft: "We could intentionally make the PC versions of things crappy so that people flock to consoles... we hide the good graphics unlock code away so they think they are smarter than everyone else for finding it, but it takes them long enough to do that the narrative is already fixed - PC versions are not as good as consoles!"
Lizzard: "That will only work once though and it might backfire."
Nanohard: "We have an idea....why don't we create a giant crowdfunded PC game failure! We build it up like it's going to bring down the publishing walls of Jericho and bring a new age of Enlightenment into being. We each throw some cash into the collection box to generate hype, as if the people are flocking to throw their money at it. Then we let it all collapse spectacularly and publically."
Other Executives: "That sounds like a winner. But how do we ensure failure?"
Nanohard: "We've been thinking about that. There's a concept we've been spitballing for a while: the "stretch goal". It's a way of rebranding feature creep to appeal to the gullible. We were planning to use it for the next Windows release, but marketing decided it was too obvious a ploy. For a one-off event like this, it might work out though. We shift the goalposts further away with each penny they pledge, and convince them it's a good thing. Of course, the project will never actually reach the goals."
Newbiesoft: "Sounds good. The main issue is that of management. Who can we put in place to ensure failure? We don't want to unwittingly create the conditions for our own demise!"
Electronic Artshole: "The way we see it, we have two choices. One, we use an inside man who is directed to take a dive. The main problem with that? We are all untrustworthy snakes..."
(Other execs nod in agreement)
Electronic Artshole: "...so we can't be sure the person we pick won't double-cross us. The other choice is a patsy. Someone deluded enough to think they can succeed, but incapable of doing so. It would help if that person had some reputation as a game developer in the past."
Nanohard: "Hmm....we have the perfect candidate. He worked for us once. The project went over schedule and over budget and eventually came out cut to bits. He was full of promises about features that never made it in. He's out of the industry right now. Last I heard he was producing sucky action movies like a low-rent Bruckheimer. Sources tell me that he still has a big chip on his shoulder about how he felt mistreated by publishers. He'd love to make us all look stupid, but he has been proven time and time again to be found lacking in the qualities and skills necessary to produce the goods. And what makes him even more perfect is that he's got a reputation as something of a pioneer in a genre of gaming that is long overdue for a revival...the space epic."
Other Executives (in unison): "Great! That ties in nicely with a title we've been working on for some time. This guy can crash and burn, and spark interest in the genre that we can exploit!"
(evil laughter resonates around their secret volcano lair)
Pony Executive: "Look, we can sit here and argue, but we all know that there is an iceberg up ahead."
Newbiesoft: "The resurgence of PC gaming."
Intend Dough: "Independent games."
Pony: "Okay, two icebergs."
Electronic Artshole: "And Crowdfunding! Don't forget that!"
Pony: "Okay, three icebergs! We have three icebergs up ahead! So what do we do?"
Electronic Artshole: "What we need is a big public example of why all of those things are bad ideas. Ideas?"
Nanohard/Intend Dough/Pony (together): "LOCK DOWN FRANCHISES TO SINGLE PLATFORMS!"
Electronic Artshole: "I dunno, we still want those basement-dwelling PC nerds to give us their cash, and we have sweet deals with GPU manufacturers to force upgrades in return for kickbacks. We can't go along with that idea, not 100%"
Newbiesoft: "We could intentionally make the PC versions of things crappy so that people flock to consoles... we hide the good graphics unlock code away so they think they are smarter than everyone else for finding it, but it takes them long enough to do that the narrative is already fixed - PC versions are not as good as consoles!"
Lizzard: "That will only work once though and it might backfire."
Nanohard: "We have an idea....why don't we create a giant crowdfunded PC game failure! We build it up like it's going to bring down the publishing walls of Jericho and bring a new age of Enlightenment into being. We each throw some cash into the collection box to generate hype, as if the people are flocking to throw their money at it. Then we let it all collapse spectacularly and publically."
Other Executives: "That sounds like a winner. But how do we ensure failure?"
Nanohard: "We've been thinking about that. There's a concept we've been spitballing for a while: the "stretch goal". It's a way of rebranding feature creep to appeal to the gullible. We were planning to use it for the next Windows release, but marketing decided it was too obvious a ploy. For a one-off event like this, it might work out though. We shift the goalposts further away with each penny they pledge, and convince them it's a good thing. Of course, the project will never actually reach the goals."
Newbiesoft: "Sounds good. The main issue is that of management. Who can we put in place to ensure failure? We don't want to unwittingly create the conditions for our own demise!"
Electronic Artshole: "The way we see it, we have two choices. One, we use an inside man who is directed to take a dive. The main problem with that? We are all untrustworthy snakes..."
(Other execs nod in agreement)
Electronic Artshole: "...so we can't be sure the person we pick won't double-cross us. The other choice is a patsy. Someone deluded enough to think they can succeed, but incapable of doing so. It would help if that person had some reputation as a game developer in the past."
Nanohard: "Hmm....we have the perfect candidate. He worked for us once. The project went over schedule and over budget and eventually came out cut to bits. He was full of promises about features that never made it in. He's out of the industry right now. Last I heard he was producing sucky action movies like a low-rent Bruckheimer. Sources tell me that he still has a big chip on his shoulder about how he felt mistreated by publishers. He'd love to make us all look stupid, but he has been proven time and time again to be found lacking in the qualities and skills necessary to produce the goods. And what makes him even more perfect is that he's got a reputation as something of a pioneer in a genre of gaming that is long overdue for a revival...the space epic."
Other Executives (in unison): "Great! That ties in nicely with a title we've been working on for some time. This guy can crash and burn, and spark interest in the genre that we can exploit!"
(evil laughter resonates around their secret volcano lair)
Last edited:
Was RSI or CIG mentioned in the previous ToS?
- Status