The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Ben Parry]

Thanks for the response - I guess when creating a game engine you have to decide on your numeric data type and use that throughout, not just for positioning. I also guess that 32bit floating point is good enough for the vast majority of applications - hence why it's used.

It's not precisely that, even after the 64-bit conversion, there are areas of code that know they can run in float32 (eg camera-relative calculations), and there are ints everywhere for other stuff. The problem is that rotation calculations will probably use floating point instructions, so anything that goes through that will be limited to the minimum precision of float64 anyway, and you'll pay extra instructions at both ends for the conversion.

 

[hairychris]

NMS have announced base building will be in their next patch.

Anyone want to take bets on CR announcing base building being added to the roadmap for SC in the coming days?

I already thought that this was something that CR had mentioned, however he's promised so much stuff I really don't know if I'm right as I can't be bothered to search for it!

 

[Stormprooter]

It's not precisely that, even after the 64-bit conversion, there are areas of code that know they can run in float32 (eg camera-relative calculations), and there are ints everywhere for other stuff. The problem is that rotation calculations will probably use floating point instructions, so anything that goes through that will be limited to the minimum precision of float64 anyway, and you'll pay extra instructions at both ends for the conversion.

I'm guessing (doing a lot of that at the moment ) you are talking about the modded/reworked CryEngine for Star Citizen? - All of which makes as much sense to me as it can - you have various numeric data types for different bits, with conversions happening in various places where needed.
I was waxing on about a "blue-sky thinking" scenario, where a new game engine is created "from scratch", and I was pondering the benefits/drawbacks of using just one numeric data type for everything to do with the 3D space, models, meshes, transformations, camera positions and directions, light source positions and directions etc etc, so that no conversions were necessary - i.e. 64bit float or fixed point. However, I would not model something like a colour as a floating point number. Anyway, off to have a look at the UE4 editor to make sure I haven't gone and overly-confused myself.....

 

[CMDR_Orlando]

Base Building in Star Citizen has allways been in the plans, just like procedural planets, with new tech/more funding it allowed for it to be implemented way sooner than expected, actually it's been confirmed for months now:

Spoiler

 

[Noctrach]

I'm guessing (doing a lot of that at the moment ) you are talking about the modded/reworked CryEngine for Star Citizen? - All of which makes as much sense to me as it can - you have various numeric data types for different bits, with conversions happening in various places where needed.
I was waxing on about a "blue-sky thinking" scenario, where a new game engine is created "from scratch", and I was pondering the benefits/drawbacks of using just one numeric data type for everything to do with the 3D space, models, meshes, transformations, camera positions and directions, light source positions and directions etc etc, so that no conversions were necessary - i.e. 64bit float or fixed point. However, I would not model something like a colour as a floating point number. Anyway, off to have a look at the UE4 editor to make sure I haven't gone and overly-confused myself.....

A problem with this would the fact that you'd be giving up a lot of lowlevel optimision possibilities for the sake of not having to cast datatypes. (particularly SSE/AVX, and the emmintrinsics library actually has extremely efficient float<->int conversion instructions if needed)
The various different types exist for a reason: namely that some types are more efficient at doing certain things than others.
Float64 is very inefficient when compared to float32 or any 32-and-smaller sized integer and generally only used when you absolutely require more than float32 precision for a calculation (as is the case with extremely large worlds such as in SC or when doing accurate floating point divisions which tend to be glacially slow anyway).

On top of that you'd have to convert your float64s to float32s for rendering purposes anyway, since GPUs don't handle float64s very well at all. (Current gen is better at it, but still way behind the efficiency of float32)

Basically, cool idea, but with current-day hardware you'll always have to resort to some 32-bit datatypes.

 

[dsmart]

Perhaps it is about the 'top execs' for you - I can understand why you see it as a personal issue, give the circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, however, the individuals behind this money-making hype-fest are the least interesting thing about it. Maybe it's my social science background (anthropology degree), but I've always found snake-oil salesmen and the like a lot less interesting than their dupes. The former can be explained easily enough through naked self-interest, but the latter aren't susceptible to such simplistic analysis. One can of course write them of as gullible, or foolish, but I don't think that is sufficient if you really want to understand what is going on - not least because there are some clearly well-educated and intelligent people backing this whatever-it-is. And that isn't unusual. I can think of at least one 'free energy' scam which has attracted the vociferous support of a Nobel physics prize winner - despite the fact that the man behind the scam has a criminal record relating to a previous scheme which generated nothing but a major pollution incident, and years of employment for the legal profession. I find such phenomena interesting not because they are clever scams (they rarely involve much beyond stage-magician level hokum), but because when you examine them in any depth, it usually becomes obvious that the dupes have been actively duping each other, in a self-reinforcing discourse of hyperbole, and of denial over what should be staring them in the face. And more often than not, when confronted by scepticism, the response is to see any questioning of their credulity as evidence of some sort of conspiracy to hide the 'truth'.

Getting back to SC, regardless whether this is an outright scam, or (as I suspect) what began as a legitimate project which has since spun out of control to the extent that those running it can't actually see beyond the drive for further funds in order to pursue a dream that they are incapable of realising, it fits the pattern described above - a self-sustaining feedback loop of mutual reinforcement, and mutual denial, amongst those paying for it. Of course, it can't go on for ever, funds have to run out eventually, and at that point maybe the courts will take an interest in the 'execs'. Which is what courts are for. They rarely throw much light on the broader issues though - and the broader issue here is why it has been so easy for a games developer to create such a whirlpool of self-congratulatory handing over of large sums of hard cash in return for vague promises of imaginary things is probably one that should concern both other developers, and the consumers of their products. Write it off as a 'scam', and the participants as 'dupes', and it is likely to occur again - or possibly to result in legislation which would make it harder for legitimate projects, with realistic objectives and a defined scope, to acquire funding. Neither of which would be a good result.

I think there is a lesson to be learned here - one relating to the gaming industry specifically, as much of its business revolves around the sale of 'imaginary things' - and learning it involves first understanding why consumers are so good at convincing each other that impossible dreams come true if you throw enough hard cash at them. Maybe sections of the industry are happy enough with this, but I see no reason why the consumers should be, and as such, we consumers need to look beyond the 'execs', and into our own minds. And to learn how to be a little less credulous, and a lot more willing to ask ourselves why we are so prone to selling each other things we'll never see.

This is a good post.

Also, btw, I think we're talking about two different things in terms of the execs. I was speaking in terms of "responsibility" for the project. In this regard, there are five execs. Chris Roberts, Sandi Gardiner Roberts, Erin Roberts (F42), Ortwin Freyermuth, Simon Elms (F42).

 

[Stormprooter]

A problem with this would the fact that you'd be giving up a lot of lowlevel optimision possibilities for the sake of not having to cast datatypes. (particularly SSE/AVX, and the emmintrinsics library actually has extremely efficient float<->int conversion instructions if needed)
The various different types exist for a reason: namely that some types are more efficient at doing certain things than others.
Float64 is very inefficient when compared to float32 or any 32-and-smaller sized integer and generally only used when you absolutely require more than float32 precision for a calculation (as is the case with extremely large worlds such as in SC or when doing accurate floating point divisions which tend to be glacially slow anyway).

On top of that you'd have to convert your float64s to float32s for rendering purposes anyway, since GPUs don't handle float64s very well at all. (Current gen is better at it, but still way behind the efficiency of float32)

Basically, cool idea, but with current-day hardware you'll always have to resort to some 32-bit datatypes.

Thanks for the explanation. There's always a practical reason (or number of reasons) why the "seemingly" simple and logical thing is not done - and in this case, I think you've explained the "why" very well. (Well, I understood it) +1

 

[Voivod]

I already thought that this was something that CR had mentioned, however he's promised so much stuff I really don't know if I'm right as I can't be bothered to search for it!

Just ask 100 different SC fanboys and you'll get 100 different game scopes about what SC is going to be when in reality everyone is just going to be grinding for new ships others have already bought 4 years ago.

 

[Zetta]

In the latest "Why does Star Citizen need so much money?" thread https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize..._does_everyone_get_so_excited_about_this_game

It's not that money alone will make it a good game, but people who know CR, know that if he had almost unlimited funds he could make the best game ever.

 

[Monk]

In the latest "Why does Star Citizen need so much money?" thread https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize..._does_everyone_get_so_excited_about_this_game

I once went to a cheap concert...had nothing better to do that weekend

This kid went up with all the fanciest instruments and the latest, coolest gear. From pedals he only used once during the set to a microphone I'd expect to see a top YouTuber using. In the over-sized sound booth (that barely fit in this corner of the bar) stood a middle-aged gentleman wearing a Rolex and some expensive "casual" wear. Clearly the boy's father and the guy who bankrolled the whole production.

Ok, good gear, somewhat attractive musician at a venue I like. What could be bad? He pressed some button on some complicated looking device. A sample started playing. I recognized it as a melody from an old Death Cab song. Sounded great so far, great sample from a band I like being played over excellent sound equipment. Then he pulled out a guitar and what followed was a fairly basic composition riddled with missed notes and unnecessary embellishments. --watch me do this sweet solo!-- Dude, you are the only person up there!

The show finally ended...I missed much of the middle and end as I had a pitcher of beer blocking my view for most of it while I was drowning my disgust. After his set, dad was enthusiastic. For a moment, I was jealous, my father never got that excited about anything I did...but then I remembered I have a great career that I worked very hard for but got the support I needed from my pops when things got tough. This dad though, reminds me of the SC backer whale and the kid on stage is CR. He's got all the money he could ever need to get the best of the best but the end product is just an over-produced disappointment. Either way, the SC Rich Dads will continue to promote mediocrity so long as their Chris Roberts of a son keeps making them feel important.

 

[Dooguk]

Except that with a hole, you're getting what you paid for

You also get a mound for free.

 

[Skizomeuh]

In the latest "Why does Star Citizen need so much money?" thread https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize..._does_everyone_get_so_excited_about_this_game

Star Citizen: pushing the infinite monkey theorem's boundaries a little further for each dollar you throw at us.

 

[dsmart]

So, just to try and pin down the claim here *snip*

Nope. I wasn't saying that at all. And it bears no relevance to what I was pointing out. I think a lot is lost in translation. So let me see if I can accurately trace the origin of what I was responding to.

In this post by me, this was your post response with an excerpt of what I'd written:

Me (i):

That's just the same nonsense that's going on whereby - for some reason - backers who are adept at theory-crafting dreams, can't tell the difference between 64-Bit sized scenes, 64-Bit programs, 64-Bit world positioning. And that is because CIG continues to obfuscate this - and several other issues - without any semblance of clarity.

You (ii):

For (2) and (3), check my posting history on here before I became a Foundryman, ED fans had some inexplicable mental block on it too, I tried to explain them a thing, we end up with Adept thinking ED does things in 128-bit instead. For (1) vs (3), I actually have no idea what your definition of a "64 bit sized scene" is, I can't understand how it's not the same as (3), but you keep not defining it. Your use of terminology is frequently non-standard, this might be why you keep accusing me of obfuscating when I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

Then ghcannon responded with this post in response to (ii) as it pertains to (i)

I tried asking the same thing (among others) that I did not see explained in any of his missives and he ignored my post.
I do mostly mobile games/apps as an occupation and I while I don't consider myself at all to be of untold programming skillz, I cannot understand what he really means. I put it on me not being old/experienced enough - so I asked him to elaborate technically.

To which I responded with this post (iv)

I ignored it because it was already addressed. If you don't know the difference between a float and integer, then it's conceivable that you don't know the difference between a 32-Bit and a 64-Bit value as it pertains to how large you can make a box in world space. That's on you. I'm not here to give programming lessons. Which is why, unlike CIG programmers - including Ben Parry - I don't obfuscate, nor am I vague about anything. I try to be as verbose as possible. I'm old school like that.

Which brings us right back to your new post (v):

you're saying Star Citizen upgraded its maximum world boundaries by expressing the number in a 64-bit integer, but didn't change the format of the coordinates used to place objects?
This seems to be a pretty weird claim:
1) 2³² metres would already be a bleeding huge playspace.
2) Why would the world boundaries be expressed as an integer, when all the coordinates within that space will be floating point?

...which I am now responding to regarding my original statement: "backers who are adept at theory-crafting dreams, can't tell the difference between 64-Bit sized scenes, 64-Bit programs, 64-Bit world positioning"

As I said earlier, I'm not going to write a paper on it; and it's not rocket science.

1) 64-Bit sized scenes: how big you can make a scene which has extents within the −(2⁶³) to 2⁶³ − 1 range

2) 64-Bit programs: memory address space related; 32-Bit vs 64-Bit integer types, program, OS, CPU math op performance benefits etc

3) 64-Bit world positioning: a position (x,y,z) within a scene (1)

My comment that backers have no clue what the differences are between the three, still stands as it was originally written. It is irrelevant and immaterial if (1) and (3) are the same (by definition, they are not). That isn't, and never was, the argument that I was making.

While I may be old school, my thinking process goes back decades (back when it was Assembly or go home). So while some of you young 'uns continue to skirt the old standards upon which new standards are built, it's not that hard to reconcile if you think about it hard enough.

FYI:

i) Star Citizen backers theory-crafting about 64-Bit world because, as I said, they have no understanding as to what it means. July 2015

ii) Star Citizen backers theory-crafting Star Citizen's 64-Bit engine. Nov 2015

iii) Tweet I made about this same thing. Dec 2015. Bonus: If you type "64-bit world positioning" right now in Google, that Tweet is the 2nd of "About 6,910,000 results".

iv) Interview with Sean Tracy about 64-Bit Engine Tech & Procedural Edge Blending Sept 2016. Bonus: "One of the big, fundamental changes was the support for 64-bit positioning. What a lot of people maybe misunderstand is that it wasn't an entire conversion for the whole engine [to 64-bit]. The engine is split up between very independent and – not as much as they should be, but – isolated modules. They do talk to each other, but things like physics, render, AI – what are the purposes of changing AI to 64-bit? Well, all the positioning that it will use will be 64-bit, but the AI module itself doesn't care. There were a lot of changes to support these large world coordinates. […] The actual maximum is 18 zeroes that we can support, in terms of space."

 

[Dooguk]

Star Citizen: pushing the infinite monkey theorem's boundaries a little further for each dollar you throw at us.

Got to laugh at that 5 star hotel analogy. They don't tend build 5 star hotels around the half finished shed your living in.

Well, when it all goes to pot, they can't say they weren't warned. [wacko]

 

[Tippis]

Well, when it all goes to pot, they can't say they weren't warned. [wacko]

Can, will, won't ever admit otherwise. And that's assuming they even accept the notion that there was something to be warned about — the “at least they tried” narrative is strong in this one and has only grown stronger as they've lurched from one failure to deliver to the next.

 

[dsmart]

There's a lot of fine minds in this thread, with lots of expertise. I think we could make SC from scratch! Ben, you're in charge, Derek you're on PR. I'm making the tea.

I'm in! Coffee please!

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by hems303 (Source)
I really don't know the in's and out's of Star Citizen, but the whole story (of the making of the game, Chris Roberts and his company/?'s) is a bit mind-boggling to me in it's eccentric evolution.
My questions are:
Q1: Why does Chris Roberts keep adding prospective elements that were not outlined in the beginning rather than concentrating on a finished game that was the main core to the original crowd funder?
Q2: What is the main barrier for the developers in getting a finished core game?
Q3: What will happen legally if there is no game in the end (presumably it will entail the demise of Chris Robert's company/?'s)
Q4: Why on earth didn't Chris Roberts do what Frontier Developments have done i.e. deliver a working core game and then do all the embellishments (only promised by Chris Roberts in his videos) as the game sold/was used/went on
.
(obviously I accept answers will be largely opinion based)

1. Because he's been dreaming of making the best space game ever for closing in on 30 years now, and every time he discovers some new game element — no matter what genre or design aesthetic — his game obviously has to include some version of that element in order to be “the best” at that, too.

2. See #1.

3. Extreme case? FTC investigations, federal time, and harsh new legislation cracking down on crowdfunding. More realistic case? Chris goes back to being a used car salesman, or to getting thrown out of Hollywood a second time (to match being thrown out of the game industry a second time). The money laundering multi-tiered company structure of the dozen or so entities Ortwin has expertly set up will ensure that there is no money to be had from lawsuits.

4. Because then it would not be the best space game ever — only a potential foundation for one, and that's not how he rolls.

Pretty much.

- - - Updated - - -

True, but his claim seems to be that what was changed was an integer used to describe the boundaries, not the precision of the positions themselves. The positions themselves (in default CryEngine) are 32-bit float. To be honest, map boundaries would probably be expressed as a float too, so the concept of changing to 64-bit to be able to "describe a bigger box" is kind of senseless.

I made no such claims. Like, at all.

 

[Dooguk]

There's a lot of fine minds in this thread, with lots of expertise. I think we could make SC from scratch! Ben, you're in charge, Derek you're on PR. I'm making the tea.

"Ben and Derek's Star Commando" for the discerning gamer.

I'll go janitor. Major Tom Head of Marketing.

 

[Noctrach]

As I said earlier, I'm not going to write a paper on it; and it's not rocket science.

1) 64-Bit sized scenes: how big you can make a scene which has extents within the −(263) to 263 − 1 range

2) 64-Bit programs: memory address space related; 32-Bit vs 64-Bit integer types, program, OS, CPU math op performance benefits etc

3) 64-Bit world positioning: a position (x,y,z) within a scene (1)

My comment that backers have no clue what the differences are between the three, still stands as it was originally written. It is irrelevant and immaterial if (1) and (3) are the same (by definition, they are not). That isn't, and never was, the argument that I was making.

Actually Derek... 1) and 3) are only inherently different/mutually exclusive if you disregard the existence of precision levels.

The maximum size of a scene will be between −(2^63) to 2^63 − 1 "units", but this means nothing if the units have not been assigned a value.
As soon as you have defined your coordinate system and its precision level you automatically define the true maximum size of your scene.

If you want to have your 64-bit world position accurate up to 0.1mm, your effective maximum scene size will instantly be reduced by a factor 10000.
You simply cannot define the one without the other, because 1) is meaningless without 3).

Ultimately, while I admire your dedication to making sure the definitions of 64-bit programs vs 64-bit precision stay clearly separated, is this truly something you feel is part of "the CIG deception"? (And if so, could you elaborate on why you think it is?)
At the end of the day, their universe has a 64-bit positioning system, which while not exactly groundbreaking or revolutionary in any way, means they can do things in their own specific way. (Without e.g. Elite's moving local space chunks, which imo is just as elegant of a solution, just different)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see how any of these things falsify the fact that they're using 64-bit floating points for positioning.
Most of your other points in previous post just harken back to what I stated earlier: Use the right tool for the right job, something I feel CIG is generally doing. (i.e. this is not one of the several yellow and red flags that hover over the project)

At the end of the day, you can't expect the average fan of any game to comprehend or even care for the subtleties in matters this technical. "Star Citizen uses 64-bit positioning, not many other games do" something to brag about towards your friends. It's not exactly false and I feel the project can be heavily criticised for entirely different and infinitely more important reasons

Fans are obnoxious in their ignorance when it comes to technical topics, but this is hardly something that sets SC apart from every other community ever.

 

[Skizomeuh]

Can, will, won't ever admit otherwise. And that's assuming they even accept the notion that there was something to be warned about — the “at least they tried” narrative is strong in this one and has only grown stronger as they've lurched from one failure to deliver to the next.

I'm pretty sure of this, though my mind can't compute why NMS didn't get the same treatment, apart from it being released.

 

[frostypaw]

Can, will, won't ever admit otherwise. And that's assuming they even accept the notion that there was something to be warned about — the “at least they tried” narrative is strong in this one and has only grown stronger as they've lurched from one failure to deliver to the next.

*er*
RSI's Strike Commander page through the rosy bespectacled mirror

In a letter included in the game’s manual, Chris Roberts famously called Strike Commander the “Apocalypse Now” of computer games. At the time, Strike Commander was far over budget and a year overdue. Getting the game out had been a Herculean task, taking far more blood, sweat and treasure than anyone had ever imagined. But what a game the finished product was! Strike Commander took the original Wing Commander’s promise that you were living a movie and turned it up to eleven.

The game used every trick in the book to allow the limited personal computers at the time to play a Hollywood-style blockbuster with you as the lead character. Patterned after the great military action movies of the 1980s, Strike Commander tells the story of mercenary jet fighter pilots living in the then-future year 2011. Players battled in the skies flying F-16s against other familiar modern aircraft. And the story was full of Hollywood hallmarks: a father figure to avenge, a beautiful seductress with a hidden agenda… and rendered cutscenes that strove for the proper atmosphere as much as they did high tech polish.

You can read the manual here archive.org link his hilarious comments are on p 45/6 where it clearly says he thought it was a 1 year project, ended up running to four and way over budget.
Whose fault is it? Everybody else's.

I can't see anything different about what's happening with SC now sadly.