Kind of reminds me of this. Fair play to the lad, boy done good.
linkedin.com/in/mmeaden
Must be a cousin or something,
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Must be a cousin or something,
Wait for all the cinematic third person shots and non-gameplay style footage that looks super cool JUST LIKE THE MOVIES YEAH!!!!
And nothing like the actual experience of playing a game when you need to be first person and looking at what you're doing
Yes - the standard CryEngine/Lumberyard physics will have a force of gravity in one direction on a map by default, not radiating from a single point, which is what you need for a whole planet. Easily tested by flying around the other side and seeing if what effects are there are reversed.
PC Gamer article up.
Just a video. No mention of the fact that the build they "tested" isn't anything like the one here. I didn't bother to watch the 45 min video, I just really didn't deem it worth my time.
http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-45-minutes-of-the-star-citizen-planetary-landings-update/
Edit: Offtopic - why not try Dual universe if you want a sandboxy space game (here). That's shortly to be released as alpha (how long did that take to develop)
Just a video. No mention of the fact that the build they "tested" isn't anything like the one here. I didn't bother to watch the 45 min video, I just really didn't deem it worth my time.
http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-45-minutes-of-the-star-citizen-planetary-landings-update/
Edit: Offtopic - why not try Dual universe if you want a sandboxy space game (here). That's shortly to be released as alpha (how long did that take to develop
)
Last edited:
PC Gamer article up.
Just a video. No mention of the fact that the build they "tested" isn't anything like the one here. I didn't bother to watch the 45 min video, I just really didn't deem it worth my time.
http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-45-minutes-of-the-star-citizen-planetary-landings-update/
Edit: Offtopic - why not try Dual universe if you want a sandboxy space game (here). That's shortly to be released as alpha (how long did that take to develop
Video is just highlights from the last couple of days' live streams, or something very similar. At least what i could tell just flipping through it. Nothing new.
A couple of other data points - my memory is a bit foggy as I haven't "played" since 2013, but Render To Texture was introduced into CryEngine (and hence Lumberyard) in late 2012 (one of the later v3.x's) and Procedural placement of assets such as vegetation based on user input rules was in there when I started looking at Cryengine in early 2012. Neither of those features are "new" apart from maybe their integration into whatever CIG have morphed the engine into now.
I also seem to recall a few posts back that someone mentioned the height map in Lumberyard is 4096x4096 - that has always been the case again since Cryengine 3 - the bit missing on there is the scaling value, which brings the normal "Cryengine" map down to either 32x32km or 64x64km iirc (you need to specify how far apart each pixel/data point is) and even then the texture rendering had problems when you moved around half that distance from the map origin. Hopefully CIG have cracked that one, or they are in a world (pun intended) of trouble.
Oh nearly forgot - the repeats on the landscape are probably the standard terrain texturing CryEngine uses, which is a repeated set of textures that are painted onto the surface in the dev environment in layers, which then gets baked into a large texture for the map - hence the problems with large maps as you exhaust the size of that texture quickly.
I also seem to recall a few posts back that someone mentioned the height map in Lumberyard is 4096x4096 - that has always been the case again since Cryengine 3 - the bit missing on there is the scaling value, which brings the normal "Cryengine" map down to either 32x32km or 64x64km iirc (you need to specify how far apart each pixel/data point is) and even then the texture rendering had problems when you moved around half that distance from the map origin. Hopefully CIG have cracked that one, or they are in a world (pun intended) of trouble.
Oh nearly forgot - the repeats on the landscape are probably the standard terrain texturing CryEngine uses, which is a repeated set of textures that are painted onto the surface in the dev environment in layers, which then gets baked into a large texture for the map - hence the problems with large maps as you exhaust the size of that texture quickly.
Mmmh, Chris Roberts wrote the following about 4 years ago:
"Most space games (including my past ones) greatly simplify the simulation, usually as an atmospheric flight model without gravity and air resistance – ships have predefined pitch, roll and yaw rates, linear acceleration (that is applied to a simplified point mass) and a capped top speed. When you want to turn, the joystick or mouse input is mapped directly to the specified turn rate irrelevant of the ship’s moment of inertia. Damage is usually handled as a multiplier on the turn rates and linear acceleration. Star Citizen doesn’t do that. We model what would be needed on an actual spaceship, including correct application of thrust at the places where the thrusters are attached to the hull of the ship – in our model moment of inertia, mass changes and counter thrust are VERY necessary. Star Citizen’s physical simulation of spaceflight is based on what would actually happen in space." (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/13951-Flight-Model-And-Input-Controls)
So it should behave like these ships build in Kerbal Space Program [even the damage model looks much more realistic, I wish a few millions would have been invested into making a KSP multiplayer mode]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cq2oyKs9bc&t=32s
"Most space games (including my past ones) greatly simplify the simulation, usually as an atmospheric flight model without gravity and air resistance – ships have predefined pitch, roll and yaw rates, linear acceleration (that is applied to a simplified point mass) and a capped top speed. When you want to turn, the joystick or mouse input is mapped directly to the specified turn rate irrelevant of the ship’s moment of inertia. Damage is usually handled as a multiplier on the turn rates and linear acceleration. Star Citizen doesn’t do that. We model what would be needed on an actual spaceship, including correct application of thrust at the places where the thrusters are attached to the hull of the ship – in our model moment of inertia, mass changes and counter thrust are VERY necessary. Star Citizen’s physical simulation of spaceflight is based on what would actually happen in space." (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/13951-Flight-Model-And-Input-Controls)
So it should behave like these ships build in Kerbal Space Program [even the damage model looks much more realistic, I wish a few millions would have been invested into making a KSP multiplayer mode]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cq2oyKs9bc&t=32s
Last edited:
Maybe ship modifiers /or atmospheric flight effects (or vice versa) haven't been applied yet, as for later date?
This is very very very early alpha build after all?
[blah]
Last edited:
As sad as it is the chances for Star Citizen to fail completely in the next 5 years is way higher then them managing to release a playable (and good) game
I would guess that if it is going to collapse it will be far sooner than that. I can see that each disappointing showing of the current state of development is going to cause their revenue stream to dry up. I would be amazed if that took another five years to happen.As sad as it is the chances for Star Citizen to fail completely in the next 5 years is way higher then them managing to release a playable (and good) game
What is even sadder is that, on multiple occasions, Genuine Roberts has absolutely insisted that the physics - all of it - is completely 100% correct.
I really cannot understand that position at all. I have a very good mental picture of how a space ship of a certain size should move. Right or wrong, it's in there, and when you see something spinning around like you see in the live streams its so jarring to me that not only do I think it looks wrong/unbelievable I suggest the developers have done something completely wrong. It's not a case of "it seems a bit slow or a bit fast", it looks like they have no mass, that they are not moving according to some physics based model. There appears to be no periods of acceleration, witgh the ship moving instantly in any direction, not speeding up or slowing down.
Where does this leave you with an analogue control system like a HOTAS? It must feel really odd.
Where does this leave you with an analogue control system like a HOTAS? It must feel really odd.
maybe technically in cryengine reality it's correct, just some inherent cryengine fundamentals that made the physics looks wonky from the outside... after all I believe if you copy ED ships to Kerbal or Space Engineers or other space game, it won't feel the same.
I mean it would be pretty daring if the whole story about 'real' flight physics would be just a marketing tool. But well, I don't see any kind of believable physics in Star Citizen. It looks more like whole space ships have certain values that define movement and rotation, but CoM and Thrusters don't seem to have an impact.
For once this is something I can talk knowledgeably about (and we did an ATV thing about it so it's already public)
The render-to-texture system is new, while there was already some scene-to-texture stuff in CE3 (and obviously, some rendering of scene geometry into textures existed for at least as long as they've had shadows), a lot of the work for it has been about telling the right systems that they need to start streaming and updating resources in a remote location, along with an estimate of the size of the screen they're going to be displayed on, etc. One of the other purposes was to make it a more generalised system, so video, flash UI and standard textures will all be managed under one roof, and work interchangably from an artist or gameplay coder's perspective.
The vegetation scatter I'm not sure about, certainly there's some new code to improve how it blends with the ground, and "based on rules" obviously changes whenever you change the underlying lanscape system and the inputs those rules are applied to.
You've obviously been away! If you're willing to fish through the V5 thread, there's about a ten page sequence in there arguing over the meaning of the term "64-bit" and whether CIG's lying about having solved the distance-from-origin issue. It's riveting stuff.
The landscape repeats are due to the new tech, which is based on merging and blending pre-generated pieces from a library across larger-scale features. The tradeoff is that you see repeats if you look for them, but within the pieces you're able to have effects that aren't as viable to simulate at runtime, like water erosion etc.
Edit: btw: where does the ship in your sig come from? I remember it as the first test asset I was given for E: D, but I wasn't aware it ever made it into the public. Fond memories.
Last edited:
Are you for real man?I mean cmmon....Flight Mechanics sucks from the day 1 of the first implementation in Arena Commander and almost nothing has changed for all this years...Are you one of those ppl. that will claim how things like FM and overall important game play mechanics will come later but instead lets get first million ships in the game and lets polish the GFX with gazzilion polygons in our ship models right???
Last edited:
CIG/RSI are very predictable, they'll signal an imminent collapse by having an enormous discounted ship sale breaching all past promises about limited numbers LTI and exclusivity. I think it will be really obvious when or if it happens.
Unless running out of money takes them by surprise.
Last edited:
Is that the bank loan thing?
- Status