The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
No it wasn't nothing there was beyond what we can see in other games.
No it isn't you clearly don't know anything about ED, the scope or the technical hurdles FD actually solve in the game.
Not implemented in ED yet, they got a different priority, like getting the game released and then add features over time.
ME:A will beat SC in this area like 10 times, and it will be out before SC, CoD:IW will beat SQ42 also before its out, incompetent Project Management and still nothing to play, smoke and mirrors.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Pretty sad, it only show that they are full of hot air.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
Yep, at the low altitude it evidently was (so it could be seen), it should have been whizzing round the planet at several km/s
Did I get it right? Judging by slide SQ42 is basically not even past alpha stage yet?
They won't release it in 2017. 2018 earliest.
They won't release it in 2017. 2018 earliest.
Or run out of money.
Having listened to the better part of 1984 recently, aren't faithful longtime Star Citizen backers masters of "double-think"?
Roberts: "More funding and increased scope doesn't mean the project will be delayed. Longer than three years and it's going stale." Backers: "Yay!" (I suspect?)
Project inevitably is delayed for years without ETA, accompagnying ToS change and all. Backers: "But we want this! They're doing everything right from the start. They did a poll!"
Roberts: "No ETA on Star Marine." Backers later: "Where's Star Marine?", Roberts: "It's in the game anyway, stop bothering me!" Backers: "Yay!", Roberts a while later: "Btw, 2.6 will contain Star Marine", Backers: "Err... *Cheers!*"
A thing is both true and untrue at any point in time. Depending on what the official RIS/CIG line is at the given moment, backers are able to accept one thing as true at a moment's notice, while simultaneously not questioning why it was untrue before or might change to being untrue again in the future.
Roberts: "More funding and increased scope doesn't mean the project will be delayed. Longer than three years and it's going stale." Backers: "Yay!" (I suspect?)
Project inevitably is delayed for years without ETA, accompagnying ToS change and all. Backers: "But we want this! They're doing everything right from the start. They did a poll!"
Roberts: "No ETA on Star Marine." Backers later: "Where's Star Marine?", Roberts: "It's in the game anyway, stop bothering me!" Backers: "Yay!", Roberts a while later: "Btw, 2.6 will contain Star Marine", Backers: "Err... *Cheers!*"
A thing is both true and untrue at any point in time. Depending on what the official RIS/CIG line is at the given moment, backers are able to accept one thing as true at a moment's notice, while simultaneously not questioning why it was untrue before or might change to being untrue again in the future.
Last edited:
The chart doesn't show any 'pre-release' states for SQ42 (AFAIK CIG haven't mentioned anything about their testing plans - public or private).
But, if you assume that SQ42 'literally' contains a chunk of Star Marine, then it does seem odd that the title might release before that module even enters "official alpha".
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Linked nicked from SA forum user, AP:
https://www.twitch.tv/dangheesling/v/93219050?t=32m30s
Wow. Game of the damn *century* right there guys!
It's already perfect! And just imagine how much MORE perfect Star Citizen will be once 3.0 hits at the end of the year* !?!!
Sign me up for an Idris right now!
(*It won't btw)
https://www.twitch.tv/dangheesling/v/93219050?t=32m30s
Wow. Game of the damn *century* right there guys!
It's already perfect! And just imagine how much MORE perfect Star Citizen will be once 3.0 hits at the end of the year* !?!!
Sign me up for an Idris right now!
(*It won't btw)
Last edited:
More of a dry sandworm.
what i saw last night was pretty impressive.
people was disappointed to not see some sq42 stuff but i was really happy for what they showed.
Finally some planetary ambience with a very high level of details.
The planet editor is something of unbelivable. I would see a stand-alone game based on that.
overtaking ?
people was disappointed to not see some sq42 stuff but i was really happy for what they showed.
Finally some planetary ambience with a very high level of details.
The planet editor is something of unbelivable. I would see a stand-alone game based on that.
overtaking ?
I thought I noticed something a bit odd with the Rover when they were demoing moving across the planet... The wheels weren't touching the ground. It might have been nearly 2am and my eyes were off, but it really looked as if there was no contact between the tyres and the terrain.
Maybe it was the articulated multi wheel meaning some were off ground whilst others were on ground?
Maybe it was the articulated multi wheel meaning some were off ground whilst others were on ground?
Watched planet tech demo v2.
First of all it is obvious it is same planet used for SC Alpha 3.0 demo, just a bit more detail, better sun, plant life. Yes, it looks nice, but it is nothing special at this point. Sure, ED doesn't have atmospheric niceties yet, and ED wrecks doesn't show full extent of interiors yet (SC ship interiors are more detailed at this point), but it is nothing that can't be achieved. I am more amazed by geysers in ED because they are scientifically generated and I can find them in actual game. Scale of SC planet feels off, but that's matter of taste.
One side note not related to demos itself - I despise their usage of third person view. It feels jarring at best, camera jerks when it's moved. Fact it does exist doesn't mean you have to use it.
First of all it is obvious it is same planet used for SC Alpha 3.0 demo, just a bit more detail, better sun, plant life. Yes, it looks nice, but it is nothing special at this point. Sure, ED doesn't have atmospheric niceties yet, and ED wrecks doesn't show full extent of interiors yet (SC ship interiors are more detailed at this point), but it is nothing that can't be achieved. I am more amazed by geysers in ED because they are scientifically generated and I can find them in actual game. Scale of SC planet feels off, but that's matter of taste.
One side note not related to demos itself - I despise their usage of third person view. It feels jarring at best, camera jerks when it's moved. Fact it does exist doesn't mean you have to use it.
what i saw last night was pretty impressive.
people was disappointed to not see some sq42 stuff but i was really happy for what they showed.
Finally some planetary ambience with a very high level of details.
The planet editor is something of unbelivable. I would see a stand-alone game based on that.
overtaking ? http://www.dizy.com/images/smiles/jfs2.gif
You can do this in world creator, nothing new
http://www.world-creator.com
You're all being fooled, and you drink the Kool-Aid!
Look at the shadow, its not connected to the rover. So, either the rover is not touching the ground or the shadow is not being displayed right.
I hope SC becomes a good game, but it has this tendency it seems, it looks great.....but that's it. I firmly believe in more great games is better for everyone, so I hope it works out, and have backed it.
Last edited:
The rover was particularly funny after how ours are now with their track marks.
Sure we scrolled across a bunch of the "snowy mountain" biome, then we saw some of the 'very thinly wooded' biome and some sandy texture stuff but that's a long way from a whole planet isn't it?
I was actually pretty impressed at first but such low object counts make it very easy. There was a moment I was waiting for the camera to slide into some serious forest and I think that would have impressed me but what I saw was no more than the sort of stuff we see in NMS with better textures.
Something like this would have been really impressive
not empty landscapes with a different texture on them.
I must have missed something here as I genuinely don't believe I had one - can you show me where they showed the entire planet and not just one patch?
Sure we scrolled across a bunch of the "snowy mountain" biome, then we saw some of the 'very thinly wooded' biome and some sandy texture stuff but that's a long way from a whole planet isn't it?
I was actually pretty impressed at first but such low object counts make it very easy. There was a moment I was waiting for the camera to slide into some serious forest and I think that would have impressed me but what I saw was no more than the sort of stuff we see in NMS with better textures.
Something like this would have been really impressive
not empty landscapes with a different texture on them.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
what i saw last night was pretty impressive.
people was disappointed to not see some sq42 stuff but i was really happy for what they showed.
Finally some planetary ambience with a very high level of details.
The planet editor is something of unbelivable. I would see a stand-alone game based on that.
overtaking ? http://www.dizy.com/images/smiles/jfs2.gif
"Overtaking"? Overtaking "what" exactly?
If you're somehow implying that the tech demo that is showing nothing remotely "in-game" of Star Citizen/Squadron 42 is somehow pulling ahead of Elite: Dangerous with regards to procedural generation, then I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken.
Also, how can you so casually shrug off the indisputable fact that CIG, for closing on 2 years now, have failed to show one *second* of actual playable content for one of their main releases, Squadron 42. A release that has to be successful btw, because it would fund the latter parts for it as well as financing the development of Star Citizen, as implied by Sandi Gardiner's own words when replying to BatGirl in a recent interview shortly before CitCon.
Out of interest, have you seen Outerra?
[video=youtube;UVnjT-15UAQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVnjT-15UAQ[/video]
(And unlike SC, the planet is full size, rotates, and has weather.
)
Last edited:
- Status