It wasnt a 400 player instance, they simulated 400 computer ships without weapons on one computer.
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
It wasnt a 400 player instance, they simulated 400 computer ships without weapons on one computer.
Wow.
LOL.
Didn't original Crysis multiplayer have more than that available ?
You're right, I stand corrected.
Last edited:
But just smell the FIDELETAH!!!!!
Yes, and CIG can't even come close to that. Even their scripted stuff starts chugging with only a few ships.
Last edited:
Because SC actually renders the ships. Look, I am all for bashing SC, but this is not the right stick. The 400 ship thing was an interesting test and I am stoked for those guys, but it has nothing to do with actually rendering (high detail) ships in a multiplayer context. Nothing. So lets not use it, because the more often people use nonsense to hit SC the less credibility one has. This is the 400ship screenshot:
Ofcourse it has better FPS than SC. Lets not turn that into a big deal.
Last edited:
Actually it is. SC wants 1k's of players in an instance, with 1k's of ships. Yet they can't get 10s of ships into an instance. So it is hardly nonsense.
You are actually very quick to try and make excuses for SC.
Last edited:
I seem to be lurking a lot since I've not had much to say on SC since I cashed out...
Even Spectrum has become devoid of all but the cultists of late with not one dissenting voice to add worthwhile spice into the mix. The latest Almost Totally Vapid episode barely raised one of my eyebrows at witnessing the real train wreck of a development cycle turn once again into pure comedic farce.
I think reading through the desert of Spectrum made me feel kinda sad (strangely enough)...Like I suspect I will be at the final episode of GoT when it comes. I noticed too that even the prominent white knights seemed conspicuous by their absence. The empty, uninformed although enthusiastic commentary in the A.T.V megathread tonight resounded like a tolling bell for Spectrum as a medium for discussion...possibly 3.0 participation for many names I noted from various topics over the last year or so.
Even the moderators aren't yet shuffling the desperate spreading of ATV related posts into the enforced anonymity of the megathread...very quiet indeed.
There's definitely something changed over the last few weeks in both the reception of anything 3.0 related and meaningful discussion surrounding ATV when it appears. It may pick up tomorrow of course but it sure seems comparatively empty tonight going by other releases.
It seems with the apparent absence of dissension, the cultists are picking apart the minutiae in posts from the merely enthusiastic instead....
Even Spectrum has become devoid of all but the cultists of late with not one dissenting voice to add worthwhile spice into the mix. The latest Almost Totally Vapid episode barely raised one of my eyebrows at witnessing the real train wreck of a development cycle turn once again into pure comedic farce.
I think reading through the desert of Spectrum made me feel kinda sad (strangely enough)...Like I suspect I will be at the final episode of GoT when it comes. I noticed too that even the prominent white knights seemed conspicuous by their absence. The empty, uninformed although enthusiastic commentary in the A.T.V megathread tonight resounded like a tolling bell for Spectrum as a medium for discussion...possibly 3.0 participation for many names I noted from various topics over the last year or so.
Even the moderators aren't yet shuffling the desperate spreading of ATV related posts into the enforced anonymity of the megathread...very quiet indeed.
There's definitely something changed over the last few weeks in both the reception of anything 3.0 related and meaningful discussion surrounding ATV when it appears. It may pick up tomorrow of course but it sure seems comparatively empty tonight going by other releases.
It seems with the apparent absence of dissension, the cultists are picking apart the minutiae in posts from the merely enthusiastic instead....
Last edited:
If SC's networking limitations are purely a function of fidelity then what's the player cap going to be when they introduce all of the countless features that haven't even been implemented yet? 2? If CIG are going to claim to support thousands of players eventually, I'd like to see a similar "simulation" from them, never mind how "real world" it is, but instead we just get schedule notes like:
SC Production Schedule said:
Fidelity might account for the performance, but it doesn't explain the stability issues.
Finally able to get round to watching that ATV.
It's not looking good so far - a lot of what is being said directly contradicts things they have earlier said, make no sense at all, or just pure waffle where sense is a stretch goal.
It's not looking good so far - a lot of what is being said directly contradicts things they have earlier said, make no sense at all, or just pure waffle where sense is a stretch goal.
I am not talking about the promises made by CR about huge instances. I dont believe it the slightest. But this 'look at two dudes creating a 400 player instance and CIG cant!' stuff is just daft. And pointing that out is not 'being quick to defend SC', that is a pointless ad hominem.
It was not an ad hominem. You used your posting history as a means of bolstering your statement. You can't cry foul if someone contradicts your claim. I was correcting your statement that you are all for bashingof SC, most of your posts are making excuses for them. Or going after others for criticizing SC.
CIG can't even make an instance. Keep in mind that currently SC is taking up a server, there are no instances. Also keep in mind that CIG can't model that many elements. So the comparison is valid, no matter how much you wish to attack other posters for it.
Last edited:
As a test of concept that an engine and codepath can handle 400 entities without falling over - it's not bad. There are others out there that handle entities in the thousands - Epic Battle Simulator for instance - albeit with rudimentary AI and not really much "game".
Sadly, StarEngine falls over, catches fire, and sinks into the swamp during even the most mundane circumstances. It's not the bugs or the famous "netcode" that causes these failures - it's the underlying architecture and design which simply isn't fit for the purpose that Genuine Roberts envisions.
3.0 is approaching.............
One moon????
But there is fidelidaaaa on that muun!
No, you're conflating unrelated parts of SC and ending up with the only justification that anyone is left with when trying to rationalise one of CIG's failures, which is "ah, but fidelity". It's not daft, it's a valid comparison because they're both multiplayer space combat games, and the ability to support a large number of networked players is a core feature which CIG will need to achieve in order to deliver SC, even as a MVP. So far they haven't demonstrated anything close, even in a highly abstracted, simulated form. The fact is, CIG ought to have been coming up with demos like that 3 or 4 years ago. IB is a project with orders of magnitude less money and manpower, but apparently a much better grasp of their priorities.
Immediately jumped out to me too. Thats a MAJOR downgrade in expectations. We went in one year down to a 5 system MVP with a 'within a few weeks' 3.0 without the Major Magic Netcode, only one moon, only the beginnings of one or two primary game loops?
I am not trying to rationalise anything. I said years ago that this was going to be a massive problem for CIG with the choices they made then. But again: IB's latest update is not proof that CIG is stupid for failing to get hundreds of players in one instance. Even the IB devs themselves explicitly say that this does not mean there will be that many players in an instance.
- Status