Is it better or worse? It feels better at least for my casual eye. Very ED ish
Slower turn rate, more palpable drift, yet still very Descent-ish.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Slower turn rate, more palpable drift, yet still very Descent-ish.
We're yet to see any glimpse of interactive cutscene, of NPC interaction, of enemy AI, of mission structure... So... a testbed with half stuffed mattress and a bedspring in blueprint phase.
Patch 2.6.1 Revamped Hornet and Broken Moon lighting pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGX96lfPm4
That flight model
That ship's in the T-pose.
Patch 2.6.1 Revamped Hornet and Broken Moon lighting pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGX96lfPm4
That flight model
Is it better or worse? It feels better at least for my casual eye. Very ED ish
Still looks like it has the same flight model as Photoshop, only with the sensitivity turned down.
Patch 2.6.1 Revamped Hornet and Broken Moon lighting pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGX96lfPm4
That flight model
Set playback speed to 2x. Back to pre-revamped model
Last edited:
Maybe we should now refer to it as "Squintro", because if you screw your eyes up you can maybe just about see something on the horizon?
That flight model, to my admittedly untutored eyes, looks exactly like it looked about erm... 4 years ago?
We also see why perhaps limiting yaw isn't a bad thing as it stops things flying like turrets in space.... unless you want turrets in space of course.
We also see why perhaps limiting yaw isn't a bad thing as it stops things flying like turrets in space.... unless you want turrets in space of course.
It's still all very much about the yaw, which appears to have been nerfed somewhat since I last played it (a good thing). It just doesn't look very interesting.Patch 2.6.1 Revamped Hornet and Broken Moon lighting pass
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGX96lfPm4
That flight model
Having said that, there are some nice things on show. When the entirely superfluous spoiler randomly shears off, the metal glows red for a while. A nice touch. And it does look very pretty. And, um.
I would wait until we see the schedule for 3.0 before saying that. This patch is great for performance and lag but is far(faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar) from where the PU should be.
Next friday(most probably not) we should have the new schedule report for 2.6.2
Looks like they dropped the guilt trippy - we've already paid people the money so you wouldn't want us to take it back would you? *lowerlipwobble*
Last edited:
SlackR
Banned
Still more of a response than I have got so far!
A great name for a space drug-dealer.
I love these stock refund responses.
While i do appreciate the effort CIGs support guys go to, i find the template kind of satirical.
Yes, and when they actually advance somewhere that hasn't been advanced into before a hundred times, it might get a bit more interested. But for now there is nothing that hasn't been done before, and usually a lot faster.
From what we see, this has led to delays and mismanagement.... its not necessarily a good thing.
Umm... what product? Surely not the current tech demo? If that is greater than they thought possible, the project is really boned.
What? You made promises before you knew how to deliver it? I'm choking here!
Sure, but the longer it goes on, the uncertainty about whether the BDSSE will actuallly ever manifest, which is why people are asking for refunds in the first place.
How nice. Someone gives you money and you let them see what you are doing with that money! Well, who would have thunk? But let's be honest here, its not exactly that open is it? If it was open, there would be a lot more real information about the current state of everything.... or... you are being open? Hells bells! That's all you actually have after all this time? :O
Absoloute bull!
That kind of goes without saying. Ok, there might be some strange people out there that think you can get a refund without losing what you funded... but ok, suppose you have to say this to cover yourselves.
If somone has refunded after the release of 2.6, its highly likely they did so because of 2.6. People can be patient and wait, but sometimes, if they don't like how something is progressing, they will say, "Ok, let's see what the next patch brings"... and when it doesn't bring enough, they decide its time to bail.
Overall i feel that these responses are pretty poor.
If i may, here is the version i would go with.
While i do appreciate the effort CIGs support guys go to, i find the template kind of satirical.
Yes, and when they actually advance somewhere that hasn't been advanced into before a hundred times, it might get a bit more interested. But for now there is nothing that hasn't been done before, and usually a lot faster.
From what we see, this has led to delays and mismanagement.... its not necessarily a good thing.
Umm... what product? Surely not the current tech demo? If that is greater than they thought possible, the project is really boned.
What? You made promises before you knew how to deliver it? I'm choking here!
Sure, but the longer it goes on, the uncertainty about whether the BDSSE will actuallly ever manifest, which is why people are asking for refunds in the first place.
How nice. Someone gives you money and you let them see what you are doing with that money! Well, who would have thunk? But let's be honest here, its not exactly that open is it? If it was open, there would be a lot more real information about the current state of everything.... or... you are being open? Hells bells! That's all you actually have after all this time? :O
Absoloute bull!
That kind of goes without saying. Ok, there might be some strange people out there that think you can get a refund without losing what you funded... but ok, suppose you have to say this to cover yourselves.
If somone has refunded after the release of 2.6, its highly likely they did so because of 2.6. People can be patient and wait, but sometimes, if they don't like how something is progressing, they will say, "Ok, let's see what the next patch brings"... and when it doesn't bring enough, they decide its time to bail.
Overall i feel that these responses are pretty poor.
If i may, here is the version i would go with.
Set playback speed to 2x. Back to pre-revamped model
Huh, you're right. Also, I see that the exhaust from maneuvering thrusters is invisible for some reason.
Heh, day Rolan is sceptical than me is indication that tear and wear is real with community.
What I wanted to say though is that it is actually good for them to complete 2.6 for it's intended design - not just throwing it all out again. Might be finally change for CIG to deliver something? Who knows.
- - - Updated - - -
Set playback speed to 2x. Back to pre-revamped model
Yeah, I rewatched it and it just slowed down....no big change model itself.
Ho hum. Always hope for the best, but prepare for worst.
Ya the canned response is super corny and would be easily deflected by anyone going as far as requesting a refund.
Reading that makes me want to refund my final min package cause despite what they are saying "make a better game" I don't believe the increases in scope has made a "better game". (Clearly it hasn't cause there is no game now) but even as advertised..second life in space wasn't what I pledged for in 2012.
Reading that makes me want to refund my final min package cause despite what they are saying "make a better game" I don't believe the increases in scope has made a "better game". (Clearly it hasn't cause there is no game now) but even as advertised..second life in space wasn't what I pledged for in 2012.
Yaw isn't the only axis that is stronger in SC. The lateral thrusters are as well. This results in a much greater degree of full movement, and a wider range of combat tactics compared to... pitch with fa/off + boost, fa/on, shoot, repeat. Or just fly backwards.
The video that was posted doesn't really show this off too much. It also spends a lot of footage in 3rd person, which is good eye candy (I guess) but doesn't actually give one a sense of the true movement of the ship.
Just as in Elite, fighting an NPC is a much different matter than flying a skilled opponent. So those being skilled with those extra degrees can become a big factor. It's not just "turrets in space".
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I disagree, this has been discussed to death over at the CIG forums for years aswell as here. Although personal preferences are totally legitimate, as yours may be, the fact is an unrestricted and homogeneous rotational system such as SC´s leads to a much lower degree of maneuvering trade offs depriving the piloting dimension of much of its potential depth.
The degrees of movement / freedom in both Elite and SC are exactly the same, 6. But only in one of the two games the system introduces restrictions that lead to trade offs considerations that the pilots can become skilled at managing. No trade offs / restrictions usually leads to a plain, shallow experience, akin to maneuvering an FPS in 3D, such as SC piloting is imo.
In addition acceleration and deceleration in Elite is relatively smaller compared to SC's. In the latter correcting mistakes of positioning (speed or attitude) is therefore almost pretty much trivial, whereas in Elite, making a maneuvering mistake can be exploited and punished by a skilled opponent within a reasonable timeframe vis a vis time to kill considerations; in SC in the other hand it all mostly comes down to a firepower and aiming attrition war given the ease of correcting those maneuvering mistakes (you can aim at any point of space in range within a matter of 2-3 seconds with most single seaters).
It is for these aspects, among others that elite´s flight model is usually considered one if its strongest and deepest aspects. And probably one of the reasons why SC has recently introduced some nerfs to both top speeds and rotations/accelerations.
Last edited:
Those are all bad things, though. It means you don't really need to learn to manoeuvre and position yourself for optimal performance — every axis is much like the other so just go for the straight line.
So it's much like Elite, then, but with less complexity in the flight model and controls?
Last edited:
- Status