The Star Citizen Thread v5

[tooterfish]

I dont understand why the CS guy said they couldnt offer a partial refund on his account ... that makes no sense to me. Why on earth not? What's stopping them from refunding some items, but not others?

If that correspondence is true (and sadly it looks like it is) it reflects very poorly on CIG's attitude toward its customers... kind of like the "no refund" TOS did before this.

There's zero technical reason they can't do partial refunds... since they already do them. If you have gifted items on your account, they won't refund those full stop. They just close the account and those items disappear into the ether.

So one possible interpretation of this "all or nothing" refund policy is it's designed to allow them to pocket the difference of gifted items, of which there are many... because they fostered and encouraged that sort of thing. It will also have a chilling effect on refund requests overall, since even wanting to refund a tiny portion of your purchases leads to your entire account being closed summarily.

It's a really shady practice IMO.

 

[Pomerlaw]

I'm still fuming about how Reddit treated that guy with the refund issue

What a world we live in

Don't confuse the world with "extremists".

 

[Marak]

Don't confuse the world with "extremists".

Yes. Not all star Citizen fans are "Star Citizen Fundamentalists".

And I don't go on Reddit usually (except to follow links) because you can never expect much rationality from that place.

But in this case - it looks like the Reddit post had a more effective outcome than talking to CIG support

 

[lysan]

Don't confuse the world with "extremists".

I was under the impression that the buzzword was "Radical fundamentalists"

 

[Marcus]

There's zero technical reason they can't do partial refunds... since they already do them. If you have gifted items on your account, they won't refund those full stop. They just close the account and those items disappear into the ether.

So one possible interpretation of this "all or nothing" refund policy is it's designed to allow them to pocket the difference of gifted items, of which there are many... because they fostered and encouraged that sort of thing. It will also have a chilling effect on refund requests overall, since even wanting to refund a tiny portion of your purchases leads to your entire account being closed summarily.

It's a really shady practice IMO.

The reason I was always putting off backing this game was that I was willing to wait and see what they released content wise. What can I say I am a patient guy.

But the attitude displayed here, coupled with their other customer policies mentioned (in particular the TOS changes) are just motivating me to never giving them my money.

Even if the game turns out well, I just dont think I can support a company that treats people this way.

Its indefensible.

 

[Marak]

The reason I was always putting off backing this game was that I was willing to wait and see what they released content wise. What can I say I am a patient guy.

But the attitude displayed here, coupled with their other customer policies mentioned (in particular the TOS changes) are just motivating me to never giving them my money.

Even if the game turns out well, I just dont think I can support a company that treats people this way.

Its indefensible.

I agree. I backed just after the kickstarter and liked the look of the game. I got a bit concerned at the delays, but it was the changes in TOS that made me lose trust and give the package away to a friend.

If someone promises something, you gotta trust them to keep that promise.

 

[tooterfish]

Its indefensible.

Yeah, you'd think.

It's defended anyway.

 

[Maruun]

It's scientifically proven* that people who haven't released games in 16 years or directed actors in 17 years are better at releasing games or directing actors than people who have been doing so to monstrous worldwide sales during the same period.

--
* = not really.

I dont know why but it just reminds me of this
[video=youtube;CIaWo-BlBjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIaWo-BlBjs[/video]

 

[Slopey]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

 

[Zetta]

Patent pending?

 

[Marak]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

And Fidelity is a grandiose way of saying "Nice piccies".

 

[szopin]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

Thought they already removed headbob in 2.5, is that 'improvement' slated for 2.6? Funny that after all that chasing same animations in first and third person after 3 years they just drop it

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

Not that simple because they have integrated 1st person and 3rd person view, what your character does/looks is what you see, unlike for instance Battlefield, CS or COD were they have separate animations and that's why sometimes you see players shooting at you while still reloading the gun for example. This is costly to fine tune specially with movement, ARMA does it too and some people find it's gameplay a bit clunky. It's useless because they will have players do all sort of interaction with objects by hand and like this they don't have to fake with custom animations for each action I think.

Video here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15511-Sneak-Peek

 

[McGlashan]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

Either turning off head-bob, or compensating for unintended view movement introduced by their over-engineered animation system. Remember, the super-fidelitous one that makes sure the character is in the same (T-)pose whether you're in first- or third-person view. I seem to recall people on this forum predicting that it would cause that very problem.

But it's amusing that they've gone from one extreme of compound head-bob (head itself bobbing, and the UI bobbing relative to your view, something I've witnessed cultists defending as being a simulation of eye movement) to the other extreme of silky-smooth POV, which they would have laughed at in any other game.

 

[Osmanthus]

Not that simple because they have integrated 1st person and 3rd person view, what your character does/looks is what you see, unlike for instance Battlefield, CS or COD were they have separate animations and that's why sometimes you see players shooting at you while still reloading the gun for example. This is costly to fine tune specially with movement, ARMA does it too and some people find it's gameplay a bit clunky. It's useless because they will have players do all sort of interaction with objects by hand and like this they don't have to fake with custom animations for each action I think.

So does this mean they decoupled first person vision from the third person?

 

[VidarSnipes]

So does this mean they decoupled first person vision from the third person?

It's highly probable.

 

[Marak]

Not that simple because they have integrated 1st person and 3rd person view, what your character does/looks is what you see, unlike for instance Battlefield, CS or COD were they have separate animations and that's why sometimes you see players shooting at you while still reloading the gun for example. This is costly to fine tune specially with movement, ARMA does it too and some people find it's gameplay a bit clunky. It's useless because they will have players do all sort of interaction with objects by hand and like this they don't have to fake with custom animations for each action I think.

I thought this what they always did. I thought that this was why Ilfonic was dropped, because they used the COD way of doing things rather than what CR wanted.

I could be wrong though - I've been a bit out of touch with SC for a while.

 

[Soliluna]

The reason I was always putting off backing this game was that I was willing to wait and see what they released content wise. What can I say I am a patient guy.

But the attitude displayed here, coupled with their other customer policies mentioned (in particular the TOS changes) are just motivating me to never giving them my money.

Even if the game turns out well, I just dont think I can support a company that treats people this way.

Its indefensible.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

[Tippis]

/modhat off

So I've just got the newsletter, and they're making a huge deal out of "Vision stabilisation". Errrm, have they not just turned off the ludicrous headbob? Or am I missing something? "Vision Stabilisation" is a bit grandiose for.... "Head-bob off".

They made the very inept design decision to have the camera slaved to the character model and to have the first-person view slaved to the third-person model, as opposed to having a sensible and easily adjusted camera and to make distinct first- and third-person animations to ensure that it always works properly.

This is part of why the game isn't VR-compatible at the moment, and while there are some examples out there of how CryEngine normally cheats it, it is also not a problem that CryEngine has also already solved. They're also problems that would normally only exist in a far more complex combat sim than what SC has on offer. So yeah, it's a bit grandiose for what should be a trivial thing to change, but in best CIG tradition, they've made it non-trivial for no good reason and thus caused all kinds of very silly follow-on effects.

If they're clever, this “vision stabilisation” still just means what you think it should mean, but with them fixing the camera design first. But by that logic, chances are that they've implemented a movement mechanic to combat the regular movement mechanic, because nothing says good engineering as having two different parts of the system constantly battling each other.

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

So does this mean they decoupled first person vision from the third person?

They simulate same technique used by tour brain to smooth movements when moving, the head can function as an independent part of the body like in Arma you can run straight and decouple the head and look/shoot to the sides at the same time, that is already possible in EVA and I guess it will used in the future for VR implementation.

[video=youtube;RAbtzAh5NXs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbtzAh5NXs[/video]

PS- Not entirely bad looking for mod of an outdated engine [big grin]