The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Tippis]

3rd Person wont be "removed", disabled is the word. It will most likely be only available in non-combat areas like cities or space-stations.

It really shouldn't be available at all. Where's the immersion in that?

Not poor CIG but Thanks CIG for going that extra mile as the footage show's it looks awesome (makes COD and BF1 look outdated games tbh). It's not a "design error" but a design choice. It has been talked since ever and we allways knew it would come.

A bad choice which makes it a design error. And you really shouldn't be thanking them for taking the stupid option when the smart one is available at lower direct cost, at lower long-term maintenance cost, at higher compatibility, and at no loss in quality. Oh, and COD and BF1 have the details you're awed by, by the way, because it's not actually hard to do. Claiming that they look outdated is just outright trolling.

They've wasted time and money on something that they must now waste time and money on fixing — quite possibly remove outright and rebuild using more intelligent standard methods, just to fulfil all their stated design goals. And you want to thank them for that?!

I think there's some misinterpretation because what I was trying to say is that by integrating 1st and 3rd person animations everything you do/see is what you do see, from every angle, from every perspective/player the representation is uniform and exactly what is happening.

When I mention smooth fps movement I include responsiveness and accuracy, but maybe that didn't come across. For example when we first play Overwatch it feels smooth as in responsive, like the goold old day's old-school fps did.

It's not misinterpretation — it's just not discussing it because it's largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. At most, I'm dispelling the notion that going for a smarter option would require more work, which it won't since the goal isn't to show off the stuff that such extra work is meant to show off.

Also, if you include responsiveness and accuracy in your smoothness comment, then you should perhaps wait until we know how responsive and accurate it is. Again, history is not on their side here, and the whole point is that they're now forced to solve a problem that shouldn't have been there to begin with if they had just been a bit smarter in their design. This smoothing business is fundamentally unnecessary. It only comes about because they designed the camera wrong when they didn't need to.

 

[lysan]

Biggest point to take from his design and implementation choices for geometry and visuals in general is that he is limiting the potential consumers for the product. ED has the luxury of scaling down quite well - CryEngine has never been known for scaling well and looking at the assets in Star Citizen it won't scale well either.

He's unnecessarily hindering the potential sales of the game by not only focusing on the niche space game audience, but also the niche high-end PC audience.

Those are from a gameplay build. Since when are live demo images photoshopped? I mean this is getting really unreasonable here. You saw the videos from Gamescom or the footages from Live 2.5. It's the same game.

Why do people still believe the earth is flat here? It sounds like you guys are just out to discredit CIG even when there is visual evidence of their graphics quality.

We should return when it's in the main game, until then it's just something the show. Considering CIGs reputation and normal #twoweeks we just need to wait and see.

 

[Backer42]

More ingame shots.

Sorry, but I had that fidelity already in 2011. In Mass Effect 2.

That's not 2016 graphics. (See CoD:IW for an example).

Also Port Olisar looks pretty much like a rip-off of Doom3's Mars Station from 2004.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

@Mr.Nowak

Pls. use spoilers if you going to spam with hi res pictures that occupied whole page....some ppl. using phones to read this thread......

 

[McGlashan]

2011 was the year Crysis 2 was released, on CryEngine 3. And surprise, surprise, nothing in those demo shots blows away Crysis 2, photoshopped or otherwise. So, yes, it does look like something from 2011.

 

[Marak]

My lulzidris just burst

Buy another!!

 

[xyphic]

I think it looks great. But that's never really been Star Citizen's problem.

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

It really shouldn't be available at all. Where's the immersion in that?

3rd Person is completely optional, if you feel it breaks your immersion don't activate it (you can even unbind the key to be sure), simple.

A bad choice which makes it a design error. And you really shouldn't be thanking them for taking the stupid option when the smart one is available at lower direct cost, at lower long-term maintenance cost, at higher compatibility, and at no loss in quality. Oh, and COD and BF1 have the details you're awed by, by the way, because it's not actually hard to do. Claiming that they look outdated is just outright trolling.

They've wasted time and money on something that they must now waste time and money on fixing — quite possibly remove outright and rebuild using more intelligent standard methods, just to fulfil all their stated design goals. And you want to thank them for that?!

It's not misinterpretation — it's just not discussing it because it's largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. At most, I'm dispelling the notion that going for a smarter option would require more work, which it won't since the goal isn't to show off the stuff that such extra work is meant to show off.

Also, if you include responsiveness and accuracy in your smoothness comment, then you should perhaps wait until we know how responsive and accurate it is. Again, history is not on their side here, and the whole point is that they're now forced to solve a problem that shouldn't have been there to begin with if they had just been a bit smarter in their design. This smoothing business is fundamentally unnecessary. It only comes about because they designed the camera wrong when they didn't need to.

They went with a design choice that they wanted, despite the difficulties, they succeeded. There is no problem anymore (head-bobbing) and they have extra-fidelity to boot. One step closer to the Chris Roberts "Fidelity".

Saying that the fps gameplay seems smooth is not the same as smoothing, they are different things I think, English is not my native language but I think it's not strange to use that expression when you want to say that something feels good! In the case of the FPS footage I think we can all agree that it looks good, animations look smooth and the movement of the weapon/crossair looks crisp.

TLDR: They went with it and they succeeded in implementing it resulting in a better game mechanic that showcases what the player is actually doing at every moment and as accurately as possible. Integration of 1st Person & 3rd Person view's in perfect synchronization.

 

[1500]

So Crysis 3 running on cryengine 3 (same as SC), released beginning of 2013.

Spoiler

SC 3.0 demo 2016

Spoiler

Why does beginning 2013 (or basically 2012) look better?

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Sorry, but I had that fidelity already in 2011. In Mass Effect 2.

That's not 2016 graphics. (See CoD:IW for an example).

Also Port Olisar looks pretty much like a rip-off of Doom3's Mars Station from 2004.

Yea this is getting to a point where I don't think I can find common ground. Sorry but saying that Star Citizen has 2011 graphics or anything in Mass Effect 2 is better looking is just not true. You really hate SC if you are thinking that way and it has nothing to do with the visual quality of the game. I played ME 2 and I love that game to bits but SC graphics blow ME 2 out of the water. I don't care about CoD but I think from what I saw it has very low res textures. Because the engine they have is also focused on consoles and they need to scale down for that reason. So not as good as SC imo.

 

[lysan]

Biggest point to take from his design and implementation choices for geometry and visuals in general is that he is limiting the potential consumers for the product. ED has the luxury of scaling down quite well - CryEngine has never been known for scaling well and looking at the assets in Star Citizen it won't scale well either.

He's unnecessarily hindering the potential sales of the game by not only focusing on the niche space game audience, but also the niche high-end PC audience.

3rd Person is completely optional, if you feel it breaks your immersion don't activate it (you can even unbind the key to be sure), simple.



They went with a design choice that they wanted, despite the difficulties, they succeeded. There is no problem anymore (head-bobbing) and they have extra-fidelity to boot. Win Win. One step closer to the Chris Roberts "Fidelity".

Saying that the fps gameplay seems smooth is not the same as smoothing, they are different things I think, English is not my native language but I think it's not strange to use that expression when you want to say that something feels good! In the case of the FPS footage I think we can all agree that it looks good, animations look smooth and the movement of the weapon/crossair looks crisp.

TLDR: They went with it and they succeeded in implementing it resulting in a better game mechanic that showcases what the player is actually doing at every moment and as accurately as possible. Integration of 1st Person & 3rd Person view's in perfect synchronization.

Let's see I stopped believing any of cigs propaganda a long time ago.

When it's in the game we can return to the subject. SQ42 is not going to see any daylight this year anyway and SC is far far away from release.

 

[Marak]

3rd Person is completely optional, if you feel it breaks your immersion don't activate it (you can even unbind the key to be sure), simple.



They went with a design choice that they wanted, despite the difficulties, they succeeded. There is no problem anymore (head-bobbing) and they have extra-fidelity to boot. Win Win. One step closer to the Chris Roberts "Fidelity".

Saying that the fps gameplay seems smooth is not the same as smoothing, they are different things I think, English is not my native language but I think it's not strange to use that expression when you want to say that something feels good! In the case of the FPS footage I think we can all agree that it looks good, animations look smooth and the movement of the weapon/crossair looks crisp.

TLDR: They went with it and they succeeded in implementing it resulting in a better game mechanic that showcases what the player is actually doing at every moment and as accurately as possible. Integration of 1st Person & 3rd Person view's in perfect synchronization.

But this was difficult, and they have spent an enormous amount of programmer hours on it - and how much difference does it make to the average player? How much difference does it make to the gameplay?

I think that time could have been spent on far more important things.

 

[Tippis]

3rd Person is completely optional

And again, in a first-person game, it really shouldn't be an option.

They went with a design choice that they wanted, despite the difficulties, they succeeded.

That doesn't change the fact that it was a design error that they're now paying for in numerous ways, nor does it change the fact that there are far better ways of achieving the same end result without making that error and without paying those costs. If they wanted to be closer to Chris' “fidelity” they could have been there ages ago without taking this over-engineered round-about route that just creates more problems as you go along.

Saying that the fps gameplay seems smooth is not the same as smoothing, they are different things I think

They are, which is why I'm saying that their attempt at fixing the camera problems by adding smoothing is not in any way guaranteed to yield smooth gameplay — quite the opposite. Smoothing always reduces crispness, and directness of the control, which is why the big dogs in the FPS field let you remove it or just outright don't implement it to begin with.

 

[Skizomeuh]

So basically they downgraded their so fidelicious revolutionary tech to the stock cryengine character controller system?

[video=youtube_share;mHw5STCxBd4]https://youtu.be/mHw5STCxBd4?t=1m22s[/video]

Check at 1mn22s

 

[Soliluna]

It really shouldn't be available at all. Where's the immersion in that?


A bad choice which makes it a design error. And you really shouldn't be thanking them for taking the stupid option when the smart one is available at lower direct cost, at lower long-term maintenance cost, at higher compatibility, and at no loss in quality. Oh, and COD and BF1 have the details you're awed by, by the way, because it's not actually hard to do. Claiming that they look outdated is just outright trolling.

They've wasted time and money on something that they must now waste time and money on fixing — quite possibly remove outright and rebuild using more intelligent standard methods, just to fulfil all their stated design goals. And you want to thank them for that?!


It's not misinterpretation — it's just not discussing it because it's largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. At most, I'm dispelling the notion that going for a smarter option would require more work, which it won't since the goal isn't to show off the stuff that such extra work is meant to show off.

Also, if you include responsiveness and accuracy in your smoothness comment, then you should perhaps wait until we know how responsive and accurate it is. Again, history is not on their side here, and the whole point is that they're now forced to solve a problem that shouldn't have been there to begin with if they had just been a bit smarter in their design. This smoothing business is fundamentally unnecessary. It only comes about because they designed the camera wrong when they didn't need to.

I can't believe he is still saying that it makes COD/BF1 look outdated.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;y_RI3bZhU50]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_RI3bZhU50[/video]

"Outdated". Looks stunning. This from a person who hasn't bought a COD game since MW1 and has never payed more than £10 for any COD game (only bought 2 of them, the first and MW1).

It almost looks good enough for me to want to buy it. Almost.

Star Citizen doesn't even look as good as Crysis 3 yet visually:

Spoiler

Same engine, more than 3 years ago.

 

[Osmanthus]

Yea this is getting to a point where I don't think I can find common ground. Sorry but saying that Star Citizen has 2011 graphics or anything in Mass Effect 2 is better looking is just not true. You really hate SC if you are thinking that way and it has nothing to do with the visual quality of the game. I played ME 2 and I love that game to bits but SC graphics blow ME 2 out of the water. I don't care about CoD but I think from what I saw it has very low res textures. Because the engine they have is also focused on consoles and they need to scale down for that reason. So not as good as SC imo.

2011: http://www.geforce.com/sites/default/files-world/screenshots/crysis-2/screenshot2.jpg

2016: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Star-Wars-Battlefront-2.jpg

 

[Jezzah]

Mr N.

I have played this and it looks nothing as good as those pictures in game. Sure if I up the settings to stupid crazy 4 frames per second on my high end right..it "might" approach that quality in certain scenes.

Remember there are people here that have played this and posting beauty images that aren't realistic to the game experience isn't helpful.

ED can also look this beautiful for instance but again at ridiculous settings on ridiculous rigs that 0.1% of gamers can approach.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

So Crysis 3 running on cryengine 3 (same as SC), released beginning of 2013.

Spoiler

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2013/03/crysis-3-performance-analysis/lowdetailamazeb.jpg

SC 3.0 demo 2016

Spoiler

http://3images.cgames.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2767584/617x.jpg

Why does beginning 2013 (or basically 2012) look better?

Dear lord...that´s the same guy....or maybe they are just siblings.....

 

[Marak]

Dear lord...that´s the same guy....or maybe they are just siblings.....

This is Star Citizen... We are one... We are all the same...

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

So Crysis 3 running on cryengine 3 (same as SC), released beginning of 2013.

Spoiler

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2013/03/crysis-3-performance-analysis/lowdetailamazeb.jpg

SC 3.0 demo 2016

Spoiler

http://3images.cgames.de/images/idgwpgsgp/bdb/2767584/617x.jpg

Why does beginning (or basically 2012) 2013 look better?

First you talking about a screenshot ingame compared with a screenshot taken from a Youtube video (compression ruins most of it).
Second you are comparing a Tier 0 characther from a single-player game with a Tier 2 character from a mmorpg.

If you want to compare characther tech use a tier 0 one from Squadron 42 like Hamill or Ser Davos

Spoiler

Also more info about that NPC and it's work here:

@ 5:46
[video=youtube;M4hdRXOdfWg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4hdRXOdfWg[/video]