For 3.0 release date announcement see Gamescom stream unedited version.
They never explained why 3.0 disappeared so quickly as appeared. They just...stopped to talk about release date at all. Then Squadron 42 release date disappeared too.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
For 3.0 release date announcement see Gamescom stream unedited version.
They never explained why 3.0 disappeared so quickly as appeared. They just...stopped to talk about release date at all. Then Squadron 42 release date disappeared too.
Https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
Roberts announced around 2 months ago.
That they will drop all release dates and not give any anymore.
Instead they are posting the Development schedule which shows what is currently worked on and when that is expected to finish.
It wasnt updated over Christmas tough.
The guy responsible in holidays maybe?
Thanks for the reply, but that page doesnt answer my questions as it doesnt say why 3.0 has been delayed or when its coming, its mostly about 2.6.X
It's not making much sense to me why they would say 3.0 was out in December a few months ago then change their mind so quickly... its really the sort of thing they should be explaining to backers, dont you think?
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
So, basically an abdication of all responsibility and accountability from CIG then?
If you don't give out release dates, then when months (and months) go by without any sign of the expected updated features, CIG can then turn around and say
"We're very hard at work developing the game that you're all hoping for, and to achieve that we've taken on the tough task of not giving ourselves deadlines because that would be seriously limiting to the creative process and puts undue pressure upon our hard working developers. Trust us and be assured that in the fullness of time, Star Citizen will be coming to your PC's *soon* and that you'll be experiencing the best space game that had ever been made before the decade is out.... I mean, before the year is out!"
- - - Updated - - -
Explaining to backers why 3.0 isn't coming out when scheduled? Do you WANT to hurt the ship sales that are pretty much the only thing keeping this whole shambling edifice stumbling along?!
No! Better to *not* mention those dastardly deadline dates and instead give out vague development schedules that may, or may not, be released by the equally vague estimated dates given within.
Sadly this appears to be the case. Another attempt at open development becomes necrotic. RSI is advertising the internal aspirational release schedule for Alpha 2.6, which is not terribly useful for those of us that are waiting for 3.0 as an initial demonstration of the Star Citizen gameplay. Marine Commando appears to be a sop to backers who want something playable in the mean time.
In your opinion will 3.0 come out this year?
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Just watch... that "schedule report page" will still be up past June this year, even though the situation regarding Star Citizen and Squadron 42 will be as it is now, desolate and devoid of progress.
<Edit> Hmm, maybe not *completely* devoid of progress..... if you call that thing called Star Marine actual "progress", after 6 years and $140+ million dollars....
Last edited:
Oh, boy.
Add another notch to delay count. I get wanting to produce the best possible game but the string of delays is just an uncomfortably dark comedy, now. It is to the point where I expect to hear of delay rather than an update. At least it does make a real update more exciting for lack of anything else.
Add another notch to delay count. I get wanting to produce the best possible game but the string of delays is just an uncomfortably dark comedy, now. It is to the point where I expect to hear of delay rather than an update. At least it does make a real update more exciting for lack of anything else.
This will be a long answer. If it's too long for some, sorry....
I haven't played the first 2 at all. I did play Xwing around '94-95 (was that Alliance?), and the Freespace series. I also played a lot of F18 Hornet online, Warbird, and a bit of Falcon 3. Of course I've played a lot of Elite.
It's hard for me to make a direct comparison; here's why: In the old days, I had a full HOTAS + pedals, so I had full controls on every axis. Currently I'm lacking pedals, so in Elite I have to Yaw with a hat controller. In SC, I roll with the hat controller. Why the difference? Because Yaw is very weak in Elite compared to SC. Not a criticism, just a fact. Since I can point the ship left/right more quickly with Yaw in SC, that's how I do it.
If I had pedals, I suspect I'd put Yaw in the pedals and keep Roll on the stick (the Elite method). But simply on/off control of Yaw in SC lacks precision, so I have to compromise.
But to answer your direct question: SC 2.6 feels a lot like Freespace and Xwing to me.
Both, but mainly in AC because there's no credit loss/insurance in AC. So you're more free to practice without having to worry about your losses.
Both. So far, I've only flown the Mustang and Hornet extensively. I have some friends with other ships I'd like to try, I'm sure that will happen as well.
Not often, and only for a small durations... just as I do in Elite.
It does, but it's more movement than I like. I'm simply not great at highspeed-random-vector-floating and aiming weapons at the same time, whether it's SC or Elite.
I prefer the atmospheric type of flight model. I've heard that decoupled gave even MORE "greater degrees of movement" in 2.5, but I'm not good enough with it to give the best feedback on it.
I'll answer this backwards.
In essence, afterburner has gotten a lot faster. It's also directly tied with fuel consumption so you can't burn forever. So some ships can go 800 mph (or whatever), but not all the time. And not along a curving path (when you deviate your path, the ship begins to slow from AB speeds.) So for racing, yes - records broken. (Racing really isn't my thing yet. I usually get just lost on the course, even flying slower than a sloth.)
2.6 is Slower: well, yes. But here's how.
In 2.5, everyone in combat was flying around at 600 MPH. There weren't many turning battles, because you could easily engage at 2000 meters and stay there. Imagine if you were in Elite, and ALWAYS fighting a ship that was just a pinpoint target. It was sort of like that. You couldn't really have close turning-style battles, because at such highspeeds, the target would fly by and be 1800M behind you before you could even blink.
Personally, I didn't find it that fun. Had nothing to do with my skills, I just thought it was weird.
So 2.6 slowed base ship speed down to the 150-200 mph range. The result is much closer-quarter combat. Turn battles are now key to winning. You can still afterburn in and out of a fight, but it's like Boost in Elite - it's a strategic move. 2.5 was like chasing a housefly with a laser pointer. 2.6 actually feels like proper space combat.
Final Factor on Speed: When you're reading complaints from SC players, you have to keep in mind 2 other factors.
- People using Mice, and people using a Joystick. Just as in Elite, each type of player has a different desire. I'm a stick guy, and don't care if a flight model is impossible for mouse users. Really, I don't care at all. If you can't fly with your mouse, go play another game. I believe 2.6 favors stick users... or at least, heavily removes any sort of advantages (intended or not) that mouse users had. Mouse users can no longer sit 2000 meters away from a target, and use their pointer/gimbals to just snipe things as they float in random directions at insane speeds. I saw a poll last night on the SC forums; 67% of respondents said they prefer the 2.6 model. (I didn't read the 27 pages of 'why').
- People using Gimbals vs Fixed: Slow down the ship, and suddenly Joystick pilots using Fixed are now easily keeping up with mouse users with Gimbals. (Remember how Elite CMDRs are complaining about upcoming gimbal nerfs?)
So - when people are complaining about 2.6 flight, it's not just about "how the ship feels." It's about how well they are doing in COMBAT, and there are many other factors in combat besides the flight model. How well you aim, what weapons you use, what controller you use. It's layers of an onion.
I think CIG is attempting to refine combat starting with the flight model, and will adjust the other layers as well. What I've seen so far tells me they are doing the right thing.
I haven't played the first 2 at all. I did play Xwing around '94-95 (was that Alliance?), and the Freespace series. I also played a lot of F18 Hornet online, Warbird, and a bit of Falcon 3. Of course I've played a lot of Elite.
It's hard for me to make a direct comparison; here's why: In the old days, I had a full HOTAS + pedals, so I had full controls on every axis. Currently I'm lacking pedals, so in Elite I have to Yaw with a hat controller. In SC, I roll with the hat controller. Why the difference? Because Yaw is very weak in Elite compared to SC. Not a criticism, just a fact. Since I can point the ship left/right more quickly with Yaw in SC, that's how I do it.
If I had pedals, I suspect I'd put Yaw in the pedals and keep Roll on the stick (the Elite method). But simply on/off control of Yaw in SC lacks precision, so I have to compromise.
But to answer your direct question: SC 2.6 feels a lot like Freespace and Xwing to me.
Both, but mainly in AC because there's no credit loss/insurance in AC. So you're more free to practice without having to worry about your losses.
Both. So far, I've only flown the Mustang and Hornet extensively. I have some friends with other ships I'd like to try, I'm sure that will happen as well.
Not often, and only for a small durations... just as I do in Elite.
It does, but it's more movement than I like. I'm simply not great at highspeed-random-vector-floating and aiming weapons at the same time, whether it's SC or Elite.
I prefer the atmospheric type of flight model. I've heard that decoupled gave even MORE "greater degrees of movement" in 2.5, but I'm not good enough with it to give the best feedback on it.I'll answer this backwards.
In essence, afterburner has gotten a lot faster. It's also directly tied with fuel consumption so you can't burn forever. So some ships can go 800 mph (or whatever), but not all the time. And not along a curving path (when you deviate your path, the ship begins to slow from AB speeds.) So for racing, yes - records broken. (Racing really isn't my thing yet. I usually get just lost on the course, even flying slower than a sloth.)
2.6 is Slower: well, yes. But here's how.
In 2.5, everyone in combat was flying around at 600 MPH. There weren't many turning battles, because you could easily engage at 2000 meters and stay there. Imagine if you were in Elite, and ALWAYS fighting a ship that was just a pinpoint target. It was sort of like that. You couldn't really have close turning-style battles, because at such highspeeds, the target would fly by and be 1800M behind you before you could even blink.
Personally, I didn't find it that fun. Had nothing to do with my skills, I just thought it was weird.
So 2.6 slowed base ship speed down to the 150-200 mph range. The result is much closer-quarter combat. Turn battles are now key to winning. You can still afterburn in and out of a fight, but it's like Boost in Elite - it's a strategic move. 2.5 was like chasing a housefly with a laser pointer. 2.6 actually feels like proper space combat.
Final Factor on Speed: When you're reading complaints from SC players, you have to keep in mind 2 other factors.
- People using Mice, and people using a Joystick. Just as in Elite, each type of player has a different desire. I'm a stick guy, and don't care if a flight model is impossible for mouse users. Really, I don't care at all. If you can't fly with your mouse, go play another game. I believe 2.6 favors stick users... or at least, heavily removes any sort of advantages (intended or not) that mouse users had. Mouse users can no longer sit 2000 meters away from a target, and use their pointer/gimbals to just snipe things as they float in random directions at insane speeds. I saw a poll last night on the SC forums; 67% of respondents said they prefer the 2.6 model. (I didn't read the 27 pages of 'why').
- People using Gimbals vs Fixed: Slow down the ship, and suddenly Joystick pilots using Fixed are now easily keeping up with mouse users with Gimbals. (Remember how Elite CMDRs are complaining about upcoming gimbal nerfs?)
So - when people are complaining about 2.6 flight, it's not just about "how the ship feels." It's about how well they are doing in COMBAT, and there are many other factors in combat besides the flight model. How well you aim, what weapons you use, what controller you use. It's layers of an onion.
I think CIG is attempting to refine combat starting with the flight model, and will adjust the other layers as well. What I've seen so far tells me they are doing the right thing.
Last edited:
Cant say much on this.
The move in itself is rather strange and unusual.
After all giving us the weekly Dev schedule is useless to us as we dont know how much features and work is left beyond that week.
It certainly was an attempt at getting positive PR and show they are making progress.
But without an full list of what is done and what is still requiring work. We cannot make any estimates on things.
This is why I said their Inexperience in handling a large scale project like this is evident.
Estimates on how lobg something takes are done by experience of how long similar tasks took in the past.
But if you have only experience in much smaller scale. You will constantly fail these estimates.
My guess (yes guess i am really not sure here either) would be that they realized that with no experience on this they are unable to make any even remotely reliable estimates and thus wanted to safe face by at least presenting something to the community which shows that they are working on things.
I cannot really make any good estimate on 3.0 either. Because I dont know just how much work towards that they got finished.
This is just mostly Development schedule for 2.6 and it´s become stale......There is no point of existence for this page anymore....CIG&CR again keep avoiding to give us any valuable info in their so called "OPEN DEVELOPMENT"....but hey I bet that we will find out in latest AtV how Ben L. spend his holiday´s yuuupiiii!!!
Last edited:
Haha!
Right, so no release dates but schedule reports. Fine, whatever. When is 3.0 scheduled, and why didnt it release as
- - - Updated - - -
Check how the 'planned release date' for 2.6 is 23rd dec. Apparantly they do release dates, but only retrospectively.
This would be fine if there wasn't a finite amount of money available, and no indication of whether the game can be completed within that budget..... Which is exactly why many here have issues with how this is going down. We want to see a game at the end not just the money running out (despite some people's conviction that we're just wanting to ruin the game)
I agree, I think its down to inexperience that they give out estimate dates for releases but then fail to hit them.
I have to say though, you'd think after getting it wrong on Arena Commander, Star Marine, SQ42, etc that they would learn the lesson and get better at it.
Its a worrying sign to me that they seem not to learn from their mistakes, as in my experience, its the hallmark of a badly run company or project.
I still dont see a reason why they cant just be upfront about saying why 3.0 was delayed? Dont you agree that they should handle this in a better way?
Personally I dont think its acceptable to promise such a headline feature then just not release it whilst saying nothing... its not how a decent company should behave!
Ya that's right, thanks for reminding me.
Last edited:
2.6 was released at least at least a week before Dec 23.
Last edited:
No it was released on dec 23....PTU ver. was released I think "2 weeks" earlier.....
Last edited:
Because NO answer they can give will be acceptable to people that are already highly, vocally negative.
If CIG says "We're making sure that X is great. We've had to rewrite code, and it's taking longer than expected. However, we're confident we'll succeed." - you know what the cynic-response will be, right? "Why didn't you code X the right way the FIRST TIME? SEE?!? Another example of CIG incompetence! "
That's pretty much always what happens. So CIG has little reason to offer too many details about when, how, and why.
ofc not. Don't be silly. They never give excuses or reasons for anything.
It basically wasn't released because it simply doesn't exist. There is no alternate build. There is no alternate branch. It's all concept and R&D work. Just as they said - several times. Yet, some backers choose to ignore all of that.
The minute the slide went up, I was in chat with several sources who were simply aghast that he was promising something that didn't exist. I posted about that on social media, in my blogs etc. But not only were the toxic backers attacking me, they were claiming that I was spreading FUD.
Then when 2.6 was delayed multiple times, had some features cut etc, and it was clear that 3.0 wasn't happening in 2016, they changed their tune and tried to say that croberts never promised it in 2016 - this despite the fact that he is on audio and video saying precisely that thus providing irrefutable evidence of him making those statements.
why is that? where have you been since Nov 2014 (the date it was supposed to have been released)? This is normal.
Hm. I thought I installed 2.6 on Dec 18. Perhaps I'm not looking at file/folder dates in the correct manner.
EDIT: just checked my logs; yep - I was running 2.5 on Dec 21. So I did have the wrong download date in my head.
Last edited:
So because a small group won't listen to reason nobody gets anything?
That's pretty petulant and childish behaviour don't you think?
Surely it's an opportunity to give some real details and a release date you can stick to so you can show those people they're wrong? Otherwise it just looks like a convenient excuse
- Status