Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Someone who isn't working on Star Marine perhaps?
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Someone who isn't working on Star Marine perhaps?
That's the reality in my particular line of software development (bespoke line-of-business applications). I am but a cog in a greater machine (usually driven by idiots), rarley told the reasoning of priorities, only given a list.
Developers are often treated like mushrooms: Kept in the dark, and fed s**t.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
First it is seniority, now it is the actual team... I am sure that given enough time and resources one can find any plausible scenarios to rationalize it. Be my guest. In the mean time I ll leave you with a quote from his.
First it is seniority, now it is the actual team... I am sure that given enough time and resources one can find any plausible scenarios to rationalize it. Be my guest. In the mean time I ll leave you with a quote from his.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
I do not know man. You dont release a critical first build of a long delayed and much expected Star Marine every other week you know. One would think that this is the kind of delivery most in the team would be aware of.
I do not know man. You dont release a critical first build of a long delayed and much expected Star Marine every other week you know. One would think that this is the kind of delivery most in the team would be aware of.
Last edited:
It's in the same engine as the rest of the game though - why would it involve anything special for Ben to have to do/fix to be sure it's just been rolled out?
All the stuff it does is stuff the main game does, I can't imagine there'd be any telltales in the rendering process
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
You snipped out the relevant bit of Ben's quote there.
Hey, I hope Star Marine is released in 2.6 as well. CIG needs to or they'll just keep hemorrhaging backer confidence. All I'm saying is that Ben's been forthright and helpful in all his posts, what he said makes sense, and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity when he posts.
It depends on the corporate culture of the organisation. At least, that is my experience.
TBH, I cannot comment accurately on Foundry42, I've never worked for them, but I have worked for a wide range of small and large companies, and the culture of information control tends to be "highly managed" in the larger organisations.
EDIT: I don't think Ben Parry would post an outright lie or falsehood. For clarity, I don't think Derek Smart would either.
Last edited:
The thing is when Ben needs to speak to someone about something he doesn't know to confirm it he does and duly confirms it.
The fact that he claims not to know about Star Marine and hasn't asked a simple question to nail this double quick seems odd, if in fact there is no truth to the rumour.
ETA for clarity I don't doubt that Ben isn't privy to everything that goes on. But given the controversy it seems clear that if the claim were demonstrably false that would be loudly proclaimed.
ETA2 - for further clarity I wouldn't blame Ben in any way for avoiding the question or even lying about it if needs be - it's his livelehood after all.
The fact that he claims not to know about Star Marine and hasn't asked a simple question to nail this double quick seems odd, if in fact there is no truth to the rumour.
ETA for clarity I don't doubt that Ben isn't privy to everything that goes on. But given the controversy it seems clear that if the claim were demonstrably false that would be loudly proclaimed.
ETA2 - for further clarity I wouldn't blame Ben in any way for avoiding the question or even lying about it if needs be - it's his livelehood after all.
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
Well, I hope you will allow me to be somewhat sceptical on the matter that he or his team wasnt consulted at all with a specific deadline in sight then, especially given the criticality in terms of development milestone and community expectations that Star Marine brings. I guess we are back to square one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...en-Thread-v5?p=4846588&viewfull=1#post4846588
But I also admit that if his role is in fact so far removed from Star Marine or so far down the food chain that he would not need to be consulted at all for this critical release then you are probably right. Not sure that reassures me a lot about his other statements in this thread, but hey.
The question still remains though. Is a playable version of Star Marine included in this first evocati release of 2.6 or not.
Well, I hope you will allow me to be somewhat sceptical on the matter that he or his team wasnt consulted at all with a specific deadline in sight then, especially given the criticality in terms of development milestone and community expectations that Star Marine brings. I guess we are back to square one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...en-Thread-v5?p=4846588&viewfull=1#post4846588
But I also admit that if his role is in fact so far removed from Star Marine or so far down the food chain that he would not need to be consulted at all for this critical release then you are probably right. Not sure that reassures me a lot about his other statements in this thread, but hey.
The question still remains though. Is a playable version of Star Marine included in this first evocati release of 2.6 or not.
Last edited:
It is odd in the context of "open" development. But we all know the reason why. CIG don't want negative comments published about early builds when they are under pressure to release stuff, hence the avocado NDA thing. CIG need the funding stream to continue flowing, negative stuff on youtube and other social media threatens that stream - this introduces a greater risk of failure. It's not rocket science, it's business
- - - Updated - - -
Derek Smart has stated he has access to an Evocati account.
I doubt he is lying about it. (it seems too wild a claim to be bulls**t)
He says Star Marine is not there.
This is most likely to be true.
Agreed.
If his work on SM was finished and tested some time ago ... why would he or his team need to be consulted? It'd seem a bit strange to go round asking everyone in a 300-person company if it's alright to release something, just because they all worked on a bit of it... Hell, I work at a 50-person company and I wouldn't really expect that.
Ben has always been quite forthcoming in this thread with the areas he is knowledgeable in (including second-hand knowledge, which is fine). There are plenty of things he hasn't talked about (often by explicitly declining to do so) because he doesn't feel his commentary would be reliable. Seems like a sensible tack to me...
That is indeed an interesting question, which Derek seems very sure of the answer of. All will become clear soon enough, I'm sure.
I'd be very interested in such things, if only to learn more about what approach you're using. It's been quite a few years since I last did any serious game dev, but it's always interesting.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
Those are a lot of "IFs" in there I guess. The only one who can answer that in the same forthright manner is Ben himself. Hence why I suggested we are back to square one with my original question. Better we stop speculating and let him answer if he wants.
With all due respect to Derek I would be much rather looking for actual direct confirmation from CIG on this. I do not see how CIG confirming explicitely that Star Marine is playable in this first evocati build could be harmful to the project. Quite the opposite. The fact that CIG is actually NOT confirming it (so far, and apologies if missed) is what seems a bit odd.
Those are a lot of "IFs" in there I guess. The only one who can answer that in the same forthright manner is Ben himself. Hence why I suggested we are back to square one with my original question. Better we stop speculating and let him answer if he wants.
With all due respect to Derek I would be much rather looking for actual direct confirmation from CIG on this. I do not see how CIG confirming explicitely that Star Marine is playable in this first evocati build could be harmful to the project. Quite the opposite. The fact that CIG is actually NOT confirming it (so far, and apologies if missed) is what seems a bit odd.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'd imagine that the esteemable Mr Parry is having to be very circumspect when posting here! In fact I'm frankly rather surprised that he's allowed to.
A lot of - actually, most - organizations are very strict with who can/cannot say anything in public. I, for example, have to hold my tongue/fingers when it comes to opinions about any of my employer's clients whatever stupid/illegal/immoral rubbish that they might get up to, and any q's about employer I have to pass elsewhere. :x
Me too. He is unique - as far as I can see - in that he is the only active contributor to this thread who has worked for FD and now works for CIG/RSI. Which naturally lends some not inconsiderable weight to his contributions.
Unfortunately actions speak louder than words and in the context of this ongoing saga what cannot be said/shown sometimes speaks as loud as something that is said and can be shown.
And there aint nothing that can be done about that from Ben/CIGs pov - it's the price of participation...
Not even that, but it's that he's current CIG and not under a blanket NDA.
So... he's got a unique view, posts interesting stuff (as he obviously knows his onions) but beating the poor guy up over his employers simply puts him in a bad position!
Derek, quite obviously, doesn't have this to worry about as he's his own boss.
Not knowing much about the way the Evocati process works, it's perfectly possible that they throw not just one build at the holy Evocati testers, but several over the test period as bugs are fixed. If they do, it may be possible for Star Marine not to be in the current build, but to be in a later Evocati build.
It wouldn't make much sense to do it that way (you'd want the testers to have all the functionality planned to be in the relevant release), but then not much of their project management seems to make much sense.
Do we know if the Evocati have had just one build per release number (e.g. 2.5) in the past, or several?
Oh, and I still haven't quite got around to buying Star Citizen ...
It wouldn't make much sense to do it that way (you'd want the testers to have all the functionality planned to be in the relevant release), but then not much of their project management seems to make much sense.
Do we know if the Evocati have had just one build per release number (e.g. 2.5) in the past, or several?
Oh, and I still haven't quite got around to buying Star Citizen ...
True. But that only confirms what Derek has been saying all November - SM is not ready for 2.6 release (as Agent hinted). Most likely CIG acknowledges this at this point and will push out 2.6 without SM if it won't be ready (as face saving gesture).
Management wise they are panicking. It is painfully obvious at this point that no release - no SQ42, no 2.6, nor Jesus patch 3.0 - wasn't ready for end of the year release and CIG new long time ago. They lied. Now they are scrambling. Any other company who would have kept straight face and kept going just would have said - sorry guys, good stuff early next year. But no CIG - there's too much at stake, most likely existence of the project. If they fail to deliver 2.6 at the end of the year with Space Marine, it is game over.
If I remember my lectures on gamedev QA accurately, there's a good case to be made for sending out multiple different builds to different subgroups of testers to make sure they focus on different mechanical aspects.
As 2.6 is supposedly shipping out different changes, both the overhauled flight models as well as the introduction of FPS mechanics, it would even make sense for CIG to roll out "partial" builds to their testers.
Not saying this is the case, just saying it's a conceivable and in fact frequently used practice within the closed-testing phase of game development.
It would however, be a logical explanation for the different contradictory "leaks"
As 2.6 is supposedly shipping out different changes, both the overhauled flight models as well as the introduction of FPS mechanics, it would even make sense for CIG to roll out "partial" builds to their testers.
Not saying this is the case, just saying it's a conceivable and in fact frequently used practice within the closed-testing phase of game development.
It would however, be a logical explanation for the different contradictory "leaks"
Last edited:
I'm definitely interested.
- Status