The Star Citizen Thread v5

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off

Don't worry, I will never make out that any narrative is simplistic.
I fully accept that Mr Smart being wrong doesn't really affect the status of development, but if he shows up somewhere that I am, saying things that are wrong, I'm going to say that he's wrong. I try to stick to verifiables but when it comes to shoving words in the mouths of "all game developers" or "anyone in the industry" or whatever, just disagreeing with him is, effectively, a verifiable counter argument.

Sure Ben. Will you also point out and confirm those things that he says that are correct?

Even if he says things that you think/know are wrong I would suggest you ignore and let the game (your work) speak for itself. You are a CIG employee, the best retort you have for Smart is the results of your work. Leave any direct responses to Smart to Chris himself or CIG's PR leadership if they think he deserves one. Feel free to ignore my gratuitous advice/opinion of course.

Enjoy your holidays!
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid we're on the same page here, I've not looked at either version of the netcode either. Hate the stuff.

That's too bad. I wanted to ask you what you for some theoretical limits.

How many players do you think it's possible to have in a single instance in the Star Citizen to come. How many who can see each other, and potentially fight each other? 32? 64?

Additionally how many players do you think can be hosted on a single shard?

The way Elite does things allows for huge numbers in a single universe, but obviously with a hard limit to how many can interact with each other at once. Do you think there's a feasible way for CIG to get more people into a single battle?
 
*Mod hat off



Sure Ben. Even if he says things that you think/know are wrong I would suggest you ignore and let the game (your work) speak for itself. You are a CIG employee, the best retort you have for Smart is the results of your work. Leave any direct responses to Smart to Chris himself or CIG's PR leadership if they think he deserves one. Feel free to ignore my gratuitous advice/opinion of course.

Enjoy your holidays!
I know I run my mouth more than I should, at Frontier, I even won a prize for it once.
In fact, when he arrived here, Derek PM'd me almost exactly the same advice. Well I mean, he didn't say "don't respond to Derek Smart", that would have been weird. But you get me, he said don't waste your time arguing with these people.
On balance, though, I think I'll keep running my mouth until someone asks me to stop.

Enjoy your holidays regardless, Mr Hat.
 
*Mod hat off



Sure Ben. Even if he says things that you think/know are wrong I would suggest you ignore and let the game (your work) speak for itself. You are a CIG employee, the best retort you have for Smart is the results of your work. Leave any direct responses to Smart to Chris himself or CIG's PR leadership if they think he deserves one. Feel free to ignore my gratuitous advice/opinion of course.

Enjoy your holidays!

FWIW I'm irritated about the brouhaha over the Lumberyard switch, not because I'm a CIG employee of SC fanboi (I'm really not) but because it's failing to understand the basic principle of 'don't take away functionality' that's been kicking around software devolpment since the '50s (And yes, Microsoft are horrible at holding to this). And judging by the number of news articles about SC's Lumberyard switch, it's a fairly common failure.

It's a non-issue: I suggest we get back to moaning about the lack of a basic game loop, the naff flight model and the way you fall through the floor or drop dead for no reason. :)
 
Last edited:
So, to summarise: there was a massive discussion to find out that the Lumberyard changes aren't in CIG's current code, and it's possible that they will never be integrated?

Yes. For most part it is shred PR move.

And yes, Lumberyard is really non-topic. Choppy performance of 2.6 and no show of Squadron 42 and SC Alpha 3.0 is.
 
Last edited:
Yep, and apparently this switch was all the bad news that Smart was gleefully gloating over for months, so I guess we're in the clear?

Well then that makes since, not surprising that it took two guys at CIG two days to change the loading screen logo. Funny how we have been talking about the problems with switching engines and then discover it never happened, or at least not yet. Looks like we will have to wait and see how many problems CIG will face when they actually get around to switching.
 
Last edited:
Yep, and apparently this switch was all the bad news that Smart was gleefully gloating over for months, so I guess we're in the clear?

According to him not exactly.

But seriously though, with all delays and lack of anything to show for progress besides Space Marine, do CIG really need any bad news actually? Rumours and happenings goes only that far, but only substantial stuff is a) status of financing and b) status of development. Almost none of engine switch move solves major issues with both cases. Delay on Squadron 42 and CIG self-reported stuff to develop yet for game is huge. SC Alpha 3.0 is again, very far away. None of engine stuff really matters and is acute.
 
According to him not exactly.

But seriously though, with all delays and lack of anything to show for progress besides Space Marine, do CIG really need any bad news actually? Rumours and happenings goes only that far, but only substantial stuff is a) status of financing and b) status of development. Almost none of engine switch move solves major issues with both cases. Delay on Squadron 42 and CIG self-reported stuff to develop yet for game is huge. SC Alpha 3.0 is again, very far away. None of engine stuff really matters and is acute.

Well if CIG get around to actually performing the switch they will get the ability to port to PS4 and Xbox One.
 
After all that post eggnog seriousness it's time for some levity:

[video=youtube;StTqXEQ2l-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StTqXEQ2l-Y[/video]

A sentiment all SC fans can agree with I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
*Mod hat off

@Ben

Sometimes I wonder if you forget that you are posting here as a CIG employee and therefore you are projecting and representing CIG not only in meaning but also in form. I think we all appreciate that you have an FDEV past, but as of some time ago you are a fully fledged CIG employee and therefore it is difficult for many of us to appreciate your energetic posting here as truly balanced or unbiased. Especially when, even by own admission, you enter speculative territory outwith your specific field of expertise or area of influence/awareness in CIG.

You are obviously free to do whatever you very well please but in your place I would probably tend to ignore Smart claims and try to not repeat the same mistake that Chris Roberts made with that infamous letter to the Escapist by giving him any legitimacy. As a CIG employee I would recommend that you stick to factual and verifiable info and stay away from direct confrontation or speculative / unverifiable territory. Leave that speculation to us as simple thread patrons. Least we start considering that you, as Roberts, are simply trying to divert all Star Citizen development issues discussion and make it all a simplistic narrative about Smart being right or wrong.

I really hope you can enjoy your well deserved holidays away from work related or PR related discussions. I know I would. Just my 2p.

I find this post amusing. Why would you scare off somebody that actually works in the studio that is making the game and providing information. Could his information be heavily skewed towards Pro-CIG/SC? Of course it can be, after all, he is an employee. But at the end of the day, lets be clear here, everyone has a very skewed opinion here, be it Derek Smart, Pro-SC, anti-SC crowed, or even yourself Viajero. Everyone has bias or some sort of agenda here, some more known than others.

I'd much rather have somebody who is actually working on the game posting information or correcting other people on what is going on, even if its only the pro-cig stuff than have no information at all and just wild speculation.
 
I find this post amusing. Why would you scare off somebody that actually works in the studio that is making the game and providing information. Could his information be heavily skewed towards Pro-CIG/SC? Of course it can be, after all, he is an employee. But at the end of the day, lets be clear here, everyone has a very skewed opinion here, be it Derek Smart, Pro-SC, anti-SC crowed, or even yourself Viajero. Everyone has bias or some sort of agenda here, some more known than others.

I'd much rather have somebody who is actually working on the game posting information or correcting other people on what is going on, even if its only the pro-cig stuff than have no information at all and just wild speculation.

Although it initially comes across in that way I don't think that is what he's trying to do.

The advice to stay away from direct confrontation or speculative / unverifiable territory is a sound one especially as a fully-fledged employee, an inadvertant slip could land someone in hot water which I'm sure is the last thing anybody in this thread would want.
It should be noted that a lot of the complaints towards moderator participation in this thread regard direct confrontation or speculative / unverifiable territory, so perhaps everybody operating in some form of official capacity would do well to take this advice.
 
Assuming CIG are referring to the volume of explorable space (and not a straight line ;)) then the dimensions of the Stanton map are somewhere in the region of:
  • Volume = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000km3
  • Z axis = 200,000km (previously announced)
  • X & Y axis = 707,107,781km (or 4.73AU)
At these current sizes, a Star System will have a maximum radius of ~2.38AU. With the Solar System being ~50AU in radius (distance from Sol to the Kuiper Belt) it will need to be scaled down 20:1 to fit, or slightly less if Pluto is to be considered the outer-most planetary body (~39AU from Sol).

Space is no longer "big" :p

Maybe, but that's not really surprising. If you've listened to what they said, space would never actually be as large as they tried to imply. Doing the maths just came up with a very compressed game universe.

What shocks me about this is how downright stupid it is. It's as if they don't understand what they're saying. Ok, fine, Chris does not grasp physics, and that's a fun thing to chuckle over, but this is just so beyond what even he's been capable of.

Well… hopefully. But who wrote this? Who approved it?! How can they not be aware of what they're saying?! How the **bleeeeeeeep** do you confuse distance for area or volume?! What the hell is going on at this company?!
 
Last edited:
I don´t know maybe I am crazy but for my "gaming" eyes there is clearly some visible changes in 2.6 when it comes to the overall net stability and I am not saying about the PU couse that sucks as before and its mostly limited on 20-30 Fps..talking about AC and SM....it must been some changes there or could be that they start using Amazon Web Services and that what´s improved networking....
 
True, once you start pulling in features you're going to have to look at what the feature talks to, rewriting bits of how it talks to systems you've modified etc. But until you do that, 2 days isn't unreasonable at all. As I said before, it's just swapping one untouched buffet for another. Also you have to change some copyright notices over.

Have to quote this, because this is the most sensible explanation to that 2 day swap that has come from CIG.
I appreciate this kind of development talk, i honestly think Chris,Erin and community team has lot to learn from ben parry.
 
Well if CIG get around to actually performing the switch they will get the ability to port to PS4 and Xbox One.

They never lost it. You can make any engine work to any device, considering requirements. Yes, Amazon has done some work for them but PS4 and XBO are glorified PCs now, biggest chunk of work isn't engine, but getting all your mods and your game even work on mentioned devices.

Also if you follow you know that XBO/PS4 ports aren't considered desired feature amongst hottest SC fanbois.

- - - Updated - - -

I don´t know maybe I am crazy but for my "gaming" eyes there is clearly some visible changes in 2.6 when it comes to the overall net stability and I am not saying about the PU couse that sucks as before and its mostly limited on 20-30 Fps..talking about AC and SM....it must been some changes there or could be that they start using Amazon Web Services and that what´s improved networking....

Or it is just bias observation. One man's experience is never enough in such cases. You have fluid FPS, some people experience - I have seen videos - very choppy gameplay. Some say 20ms, some say 400ms ping. It really depends.

It might be however that AWS is just dat better with latency and gaming than any other service. There's reason why FD have chosen AWS as well for ED.
 
I've been trying to get up enough enthusiasm to fire up Star Citizen 2.6. Can't say the new gameplay mode fills me with enthusiasm (but then, I've never played Arena Commander or for that matter CQC either). It'll be interesting to see if the graphics render differently, and if the humorous glitches that result from the ambitious attempt to model physics rather than simulate it have been sorted.

Meanwhile, hurry to claim your discounted Aurora or Mustang limited "warbond" game package: there are only a bit more than 5,000 of each left! That's out of a daily allowance of 1,500 of each; last year they sold out within hours of every daily release. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages

By the way: aren't we overdue for creating a new Star Citizen discussion thread? It takes ages to navigate to the last page on a mobile device that doesn't have a "last page" option.
 
Maybe, but that's not really surprising. If you've listened to what they said, space would never actually be as large as they tried to imply. Doing the maths just came up with a very compressed game universe.

What shocks me about this is how downright stupid it is. It's as if they don't understand what they're saying. Ok, fine, Chris does not grasp physics, and that's a fun thing to chuckle over, but this is just so beyond what even he's been capable of.

Well… hopefully. But who wrote this? Who approved it?! How can they not be aware of what they're saying?! How the **bleeeeeeeep** do you confuse distance for area or volume?! What the hell is going on at this company?!

It is mostly marketing talk that is intended to motivate a large demographic to consume. To do that efficiently you have to throw concepts around that are very open to interpretation so many people can relate to them, i.e.

- giving a number of star systems without making clear what size we are talking about (is it real-life size or downsized)
- creating game mechanics that are so vague that it is very unclear what activities are acutally involved (like electronic warfare or working as stewardEss)
etc.

These concepts do even contradict themselves which is actually good for selling the product as long as these contradictions don't challenge each other too directy. if you do it correctly you get people in the same boat whose expectations differ radically, i.e.

- space is huge (will have vast empty areas) vs. space is filled with interesting stuff everywhere
- it will be the most awesome mmo ever vs. the game engine is not able to provide that experience through the limited number of clients on a server
- space ships behave physically correct vs. successor to Wing Commander
- space ships can be bought for real cash (P2W; Privileges for the better off) vs. space ships can't be bought for real cash (egalitarian play-space, no P2W)

There are many, many more of these contradictions and I think they are part of a marketing tactic, that builds on viral marketing a lot, too. They could free everyone from a lack of clarity by just telling people what is actually going on or promulgate that they have no clue and it is just marketing. But they let it go, enabling fan forums to write basically several books on several topics that are nothing but speculation made possible by that ambiguity everywhere. This resulted in a huge narrative where it is impossible do distinguish between fiction and facts in any way (think of all the fan-posts and fan-videos explaining Star Citizen mixing up with official marketing media).

So in my opinion, if you realize that much of the marketing stuff does make no sense if you look closer, don't be surprised, the ambiguity and fleshlessness of concepts is an intended part of a marketing tactic.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom