The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Nice find AJW
Let's all have a laugh at that guy with the egg on his face. What a pratt.
Right... show me the text in that (5yr old) spec that mentions "cargo shifting around changes the center of mass".
No egg here, Zetta.
“mass or energy changes affecting maneuverability on the fly”
No so much egg as an entire poultry farm.
Your dogged defence of CIG's history revisionism is admirable, but just stop it before it gets ridiculous, ok?
Last edited:
Ah ok, so it´s the 5,5 Mio. Stretch Goal: Professional motion capture for the Squadron 42 cutscenes.
I´m quite sure Chris talked about that.
And your "Derek Smart blaming media empire (with other peoples money)" is the letter to the escapist.
I really understand that many people aren´t happy with CR and SC (I´m not very happy either). But don´t you think your arguments against the project (and there are certainly many valid ones) should have a little more substance?
Havent you noticed how thorn works by now? At some point I guess a line must be drawn, and people should only respond to him with the massive list of questions he has been dodging and evading via some mediocre debate-school tricks.
So Thorn, when is "Most Openest Development Ever" going to be released, roughly speaking? And if online polls have poor methodology, then surely you cant point at a poll as an excuse for the missed deadline of 2014? How is the 'always up to date' internal planning going? Were you also so impressed with the release of 3.0 dec 2016 that totally fixed everything and would show all the nay-sayers? Dont you agree its totally normal that they had three times the money they needed, and now they dont have enough anymore without depending on sales of Sq42? Speaking of Sq42, kinda weird that they said it would come in 2016, missed the deadline, had literally nothing to show and didnt even acknowledge failing to release? Almost sound like they are lying to us, right?
- - - Updated - - -
Sometimes I feel that Thorn wouldn't be so easily ridiculed if he wouldnt overreach so much. He is decent at discussing things, but when you chose absurd positions there is nothing to gain.
Jezus!
You seem to have missed all the ASK ZE CHAIRMAN episodes where Croberts says "Yes!" to 10 questions on every single show.
Visit the SA forums for an up-to-date list of promises on features planned for SC.
So taking on cargo could add total mass, and slow the ship down. Again, you're creating your own spec and stating unless CIG creates THAT spec, they lied.
But this is all just pointless either way... eventually it goes back to "CIG promised a red button. They provided a green one. THEY LIED." If CIG promised 100 systems and we end up with 95, I'll base my opinion on the fun-factor of the 95 systems - not get outraged over the 5 that aren't there. Some people won't; to them, the important thing is Did You Make 100 Systems, because they want another checkbox worth of ammo for forum battles.
The age of that text highlights exactly what I was saying in my post, they sold a feature as part of the incomparable attention to detail that SC would provide, only to now realise it's not feasible for whatever reason
Trying to imply that it's irrelevant due to being out of date is just weasely.
But by all means keep doubling down.
Last edited:
Ship/Cargo Interaction
Finally, as included in the final use case players must be able to interact with their cargo from the ship’s onboard manifest. Using the manifest, you can activate and deactivate locking plates (to jettison cargo), set orders for arranging cargo and see the effect that all of your items are having on your center of mass (unlike previous games, your ships’ performance will be tied to the mass and volume of what you decide to load aboard her!) We are in the process of developing the UI for this system today, and are proud to present a mockup of the current version.
If you are happy with CIG squandering your money in various increasingly expensive ways on mo-cap and endless re-shoots for 90's style cut-scenes whilst having no game to put it in that really is your problem, just don't expect sympathy when CIG fails. Which quite honestly I think it already has.
Ok. Let's do it the hard way since you insist.
Is cargo shifting around a mass change that happens on the fly? Yes or no.
Is mass changes happening on the the fly something that CIG described as their spec? Yes or no.
Is it accurate to say that shifting cargo would fit the criteria for the level of fidelity CIG presents in that spec? Y/N
Is their new statement that sacrificing that simulation in favour of “fun” a reduction of that fidelity? Y/N
Does a reduction equate to “more”? Y/N
Answer that — preferably truthfully — before insulting and accusing people of making something up, ok?
Also, when doing that, please try — try very very hard — not to make something up yourself.
Last edited:
Google finds the quote easily enough: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/14677-Cargo-Interaction
From April 2015.
From April 2015.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Subscriber Town Hall: February 2017
TLDR
TLDR
Source: https://relay.sc/transcript/subscriber-town-hall-february-2017-summary
I'm sure that was before Vision 2.6.1h though, so it doesn't count.
Seriously though, the thing that bugs me about so much of CIG's comms is the finality of it - you will be able to do this, you can do that, this is how it works... Despite them (quite clearly) not having finalised how most of these systems will actually work yet, let alone in combination with other systems. Then if they realise something's really not a good idea and have to go back on it, it just makes them look foolish.
Hmmm... I've only read about 10 or so pages at random. Maybe the hilarity is in one of the other 2453 pages.
I'll get back to you when I find it.
I might be a while though.
Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat
Banned
Thanks again for the link Rolan....
Wow... Is it just me, or is this stuff that CIG's designers and developers should have been working on, oh, I don't know, two or three *years* ago?
- Status