Yup, to me its simply wasting development time. Sure, they can point to it say look "fidelty", but its useless fidelity. A bog standard stamina and oxygen system would work just as well... unless, that is what they are actually doing, and all this is just marketing smoke and mirrors.
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Yup, to me its simply wasting development time. Sure, they can point to it say look "fidelty", but its useless fidelity. A bog standard stamina and oxygen system would work just as well... unless, that is what they are actually doing, and all this is just marketing smoke and mirrors.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Why depth and fidelity obviously. Cant have enough of it now can we.
Lucifer? I mean, just by looking at that painting.
- - - Updated - - -
That is indeed all they are doing, if even that. I wouldn't be surprised if it's purely just Chris blowing smoke up the backers, er, pipes.
It's all fine if it's fun and engaging, perhaps adding a bit of strategy to foot based gameplay but we've all seen how fun and engaging and strategic the flight model is, so I'm not holding my breath here.
But CIG would never do that, surely?
After all, this is the company that has marketed innovations such as being able to flank your enemies using air vents and setting traps with holograms to trick them!
It sounds like rhetoric to me. I wouldn't imagine it's been written by anyone actually doing any programming and I don't buy it.
I can say this with some confidence having programmed games professionally at the start of my career now consisting of almost two decades of software development; games developers need to be among the most efficient. Wasting CPU cycles "modelling" some mock real world simulation logic that has no bearing on the game-play or experience would be shunned. It sounds like a completely ludicrous idea for a product already in dire need of optimization.
Games programming is about providing an illusion and thinking out of the box. A typical interview question that I've seen is to write some back-end code for a virtual pet game world in which creatures need to be fed and petted or they increase hunger or decrease happiness over time. One answer might be to create a game-loop and tick increment those variables in real time, ok Sounds reasonable, that's how the world works right? time passes and we get more hungry with each passing moment, but a more efficient answer is simply store the time stamp each time the pet is fed or petted and infer the number of ticks that would have occurred only at the point the user interacts with it and calculate how hungry or happy it is then and update it... so in the game world a pet simply doesn't require any processing unless the player interacts with it when only a quick calculation is needed.
This is games development in a nutshell, the player imagines what is happening, the programmer delivers the illusion using as little computer power as needed.
If it isn't on the screen and in the game then it's probably not happening the way it's being marketed, it just sounds like the ridiculous nonsense PR spout to get consumers to put the product on a pedestal and make them believe it's this mythical detailed magical holy grail of video games.
How very fine indeed are the emperor's clothes.
I can say this with some confidence having programmed games professionally at the start of my career now consisting of almost two decades of software development; games developers need to be among the most efficient. Wasting CPU cycles "modelling" some mock real world simulation logic that has no bearing on the game-play or experience would be shunned. It sounds like a completely ludicrous idea for a product already in dire need of optimization.
Games programming is about providing an illusion and thinking out of the box. A typical interview question that I've seen is to write some back-end code for a virtual pet game world in which creatures need to be fed and petted or they increase hunger or decrease happiness over time. One answer might be to create a game-loop and tick increment those variables in real time, ok Sounds reasonable, that's how the world works right? time passes and we get more hungry with each passing moment, but a more efficient answer is simply store the time stamp each time the pet is fed or petted and infer the number of ticks that would have occurred only at the point the user interacts with it and calculate how hungry or happy it is then and update it... so in the game world a pet simply doesn't require any processing unless the player interacts with it when only a quick calculation is needed.
This is games development in a nutshell, the player imagines what is happening, the programmer delivers the illusion using as little computer power as needed.
If it isn't on the screen and in the game then it's probably not happening the way it's being marketed, it just sounds like the ridiculous nonsense PR spout to get consumers to put the product on a pedestal and make them believe it's this mythical detailed magical holy grail of video games.
How very fine indeed are the emperor's clothes.
If a trees falls in the woods...
> Missiles not inheriting velocity from ships
Literally a single line of C++ code is all you need to implement that provided your engine has decent vector classes. All you need to do is add the ships velocity vector to the velocity vector of the missile when it's spawned. Why don't they just fix it? Is the engine really so botched that it can't be patched in 1 minute by adding a vector addition to the missile entity code? Some of the bugs listed drives me g nuts because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Literally a single line of C++ code is all you need to implement that provided your engine has decent vector classes. All you need to do is add the ships velocity vector to the velocity vector of the missile when it's spawned. Why don't they just fix it? Is the engine really so botched that it can't be patched in 1 minute by adding a vector addition to the missile entity code? Some of the bugs listed drives me g nuts because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Does it land on a bear enjoying a private moment?
Also - the missile initial velocity thing - I am 100% sure they said they had patched this much earlier.
Last edited:
There's a list of things to fix. It's on the list.
At least it's not something like an auto-turret that shoots your own missiles. Or shoots enemy missiles when you're sitting inside a station, causing you to be destroyed by the station. Bugs like that, especially in a final release, would be even more amusing.
Those are bugs that make sense as bugs. Something as ridiculously trivial and basic as initialisation of an object shouldn't even exist as a bug. Unless you're staffing your coding department with pre-schoolers, it shouldn't even be on the list.
Missile::Missile(vector pos, vector v, long type) {
/* No, I'm not overloading with a void constructor, initialise your objects correctly n00b
In fact, why is any of this even here, it should be in the parent object class */
position = pos;
velocity = v;
typeID = type;
…
}velocity = v;
typeID = type;
…
Last edited:
I like how you assume SC won't have ridiculously funny bugs on it's MVP launch.
or
IF Ship = InsideStation THEN TurrentFire = NO
- - - Updated - - -
I like how you assume what I'm assuming, even though I've said nothing to support your assumption.
I like how he assumes SC will launch.
Still makes sense as a bug, unlike this insane level of unprecedented incompetence on all levels.
You are comparing a special case in a special environment to being ignorant of one of the most basic of OOP concepts. One that CIG has manage to fail at repeatedly for no sane or sensible reason.
Last edited:
And we have a winner!
So you just ridiculed another game for the same reasons you'd ridicule the game you're defending for what reason?
I'm familiar with your posting style and history in this thread, Voivod... engaging with you, further along this line, would be a complete waste of time.
Indeed. The virtual pet essentially being Schrodinger's cat, in that its state is only measured at the instant it is observed.
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
Here we go again.
This is for discussing Star Citizen. Note Elite Dangerous. Got that? Feel free to discuss Elite IN THE REST OF THE FORUM but not here. This. Is. For. Star. Citizen.
Really, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.
While I am here, we don't discuss or snipe at other posters either.
No more warnings.
This is for discussing Star Citizen. Note Elite Dangerous. Got that? Feel free to discuss Elite IN THE REST OF THE FORUM but not here. This. Is. For. Star. Citizen.
Really, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.
While I am here, we don't discuss or snipe at other posters either.
No more warnings.
- Status