The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Ben Parry

Ben Parry
spacebum said:
That's right folks, the only difference between Windows 8 and Windows 10 is the number! In fact, you can make any program created for windows 8 100% compatible in windows 10 by simply doing a find/replace on windows 8 in the code.

[rolleyes]

- - - Updated - - -

MOST OPEN DEVELOPMENT IN THE HISTORY OF GAMING!!!

*proceeds to spend a year switching engines and doesn't mention it until christmas*
Click to expand...
Sorry, I screwed that up, I didn't mean to imply that either pair were the same, just that the middle version number that was skipped doesn't exist. A better comparison would indeed have been Star Citizen jumping to version 2.0 at the end of last year, instead of a 1.x, except if it had jumped straight from 1.x to 3.0.

- - - Updated - - -

Noctrach said:
You're actually completely right as usual :x I just looked it up, was under the impression that it was a variant of 5 but it's indeed been built from a 3.8.1 core. My bad.
Are you sure about the difference being simply branding? I was under the impression that a lot had actually been completely overhauled under the hood, although the code interface is probably still roughly the same.
Win8 vs Win10 is mostly UI/Shell changes and I thought CE3 vs CE5 was quite a bit more substantial than that.

How are your thoughts on this change?
Can you clarify whether CIG is incorporating parts of Lumberyard into the engine you were using so far, or the other way around?
Click to expand...
I've only skim-read the CE5 code on GitHub, but it looks roughly what I'd have expected 3.9 to look like. I think as I mentioned upthread, porting Star Citizen from one to the other at the point we forked is literally zero code changes, so it's necessarily about integrating Lumberyard to SC, and not vice versa.
 

Barking_Mad

Barking_Mad
Ben Parry said:
Sorry, I screwed that up, I didn't mean to imply that either pair were the same, just that the middle version number that was skipped doesn't exist. A better comparison would indeed have been Star Citizen jumping to version 2.0 at the end of last year, instead of a 1.x, except if it had jumped straight from 1.x to 3.0.

- - - Updated - - -


I've only skim-read the CE5 code on GitHub, but it looks roughly what I'd have expected 3.9 to look like. I think as I mentioned upthread, porting Star Citizen from one to the other at the point we forked is literally zero code changes, so it's necessarily about integrating Lumberyard to SC, and not vice versa.
Click to expand...

Can you say how much work the change involved?
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
Kerrash said:
To be fair, it sounds like the previous year was already spent on moving to this engine; which would explain some of the delays.

Still it is odd that this news is held off until Crytek start closing offices.
Click to expand...

Doesn't explain why they spent large parts of Citizencon boring their backers with Spectrum when they had this doozy hiding up their sleeves.
 

Noctrach

N
Ben Parry said:
I've only skim-read the CE5 code on GitHub, but it looks roughly what I'd have expected 3.9 to look like. I think as I mentioned upthread, porting Star Citizen from one to the other at the point we forked is literally zero code changes, so it's necessarily about integrating Lumberyard to SC, and not vice versa.
Click to expand...

So then is the assumption correct that this was basically done to reduce the amount of work required to try and get the current netcode to work, meaning there will be very little changes in the overall engine, aside from changing the networking module to the Amazon tech?

Are they also rolling LY's VR support into the current engine?
 

milligna

milligna
Are they also rolling LY's VR support into the current engine?
Click to expand...

Even if they did, the framerates would be what, 5fps? 7? You'll need more than just Carmack timewarp pixie magic to make that work. All the "fidelity" is going to make for a slideshow.

He shouldn't have promised what he couldn't achieve, but then that's sort of the whole problem with this project from the start.
 
Last edited:

Gully Foyle

Gully Foyle
I'm a Lumberjack and I'm calling

TIMBBEERRRRrrrRR

Chris: If you're reading this: Call Davey B and he will gladly arrange the use of the COBRA VulKAN SEcreT 64 DIREct12 DEv package!
 

Ben Parry

Ben Parry
Noctrach said:
So then is the assumption correct that this was basically done to reduce the amount of work required to try and get the current netcode to work, meaning there will be very little changes in the overall engine, aside from changing the networking module to the Amazon tech?

Are they also rolling LY's VR support into the current engine?
Click to expand...
I'm not privy to the reasons people do things :D
 
Last edited:

McGlashan

McGlashan
The down side to "zero code changes" is that the switch won't fix, or even improve, anything at all either. I predict a lot of "omg 2.6 on Lumberyard is sooo much better!" comments as the placebo effect kicks in.
 

milligna

milligna
There's a whole laundry list of reasons. It has annoyed me for years that despite all this open development, all this reversing transversing and perversing the 'verse, you never get anybody from CIG being SERIOUS about what's needed for VR support. You never get anybody talking the right VR lingo, just constantly kicking the can down the road and claiming magic Germans will make it all work...

What's so scary about honestly addressing the issues involved in making any of the on foot stuff work? Can they not admit that Roberts' fidelity-lust may possibly have a slight drawback in that rendering such stuff for 90fps stereoscopic even with ASW/ATW is gonna be... problematic at best for years to come?

They've spent countless months babbling about "jukes" and "unified perspective," the least they can do is prop up some bozo in a tragic fedora to gurgle on about "presence" on one of those streams. Why, they can tie it in to a special Vee Arr Innovator's Edition Concept Art Space Boat Coast 2 Coast Ship Sale! Pay a mere $650 for a cockpit with a better view than a mail slot. PERFECT FOR VR! Sure, costs slightly more than the Rift but Tony Zurovec himself agrees it's a good bargain now as these VR-ready ships will only increase in price. You can trust Tony, he smells of apples and ambition. Act now!

I shouldn't give them any ideas.
 
Last edited:

spacebum

S
Noctrach said:
aside from changing the networking module to the Amazon tech?
Click to expand...

My understanding is this will not make a blind bit of difference. Lumberjack has a feature which tries to make it easy as possible to create multiplayer games, but this is explicitly stated not to be suitable for MMOs. If they want to continue down the MMO path it doesn't matter whether they use Amazon servers or their own, they've still got to build the networking technology to handle it, and it's still just as unrealistic.

They're either gonna continue down this ill-fated path, wasting money while never coming close to the sort of large scale battles promised by their overpriced spaceship jpg sales, or they'll do the sensible but unpopular thing and scale back the ambition.
 

Dooguk

D
Reports are coming in that the graphics don't look as good in this new miracle engine. Has fidelity gone out the window? Can anybody confirm?
 

Moonax IRL

Moonax IRL
Funny it was pointed out by myself and others numerous times in this thread in the past that the use of the old gen Cryengine was a major act of stupidity and lack of foresight. Then we had a litany of the usual suspect saying "no,no, it all been rewritten from the ground up and its going to be great, a new Starengine", chanted ad nauseam.

Of course now we are proven right, and the frankenstein that was "Starengine" has been dumped for another engine, nearly 5 years into the ponzi scheme that is the SC dev process. When will the numbskulls wake up and see that they are being screwed backwards.
 
Last edited:

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy

Stormprooter

Stormprooter
spacebum said:
That's right folks, the only difference between Windows 8 and Windows 10 is the number! In fact, you can make any program created for windows 8 100% compatible in windows 10 by simply doing a find/replace on windows 8 in the code.

[rolleyes]
Click to expand...

If you use the .NET framework, then it's not an issue. I have applications that run on everything from Windows XP/Server 2k3 upwards with no problems at all :D

AAA games/engines are a bit different though - I'll concede that....
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom