The Star Citizen Thread v8

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Looking back to something CR said in a long post about the performance of 3.0 back in December 2017:

At Citizen Con we announced that we are moving to a quarterly release schedule that is less feature bound and more focused on regular updates. The release of 3.0 is the first step in that strategy. We could have spent a few more weeks dialing in performance and bugs before going "Live" after we returned from the Holiday break but as most of the company won't return until the second week of January (as we worked a week deeper into 2017 than we did in 2016) we would then not be going Live until the beginning of February. Considering that for us to hit the Q1 release date we need to be going to Evocati in the middle of February, it would put us in the same situation as this year where we ran late as we were focusing on features versus dates.

Ignore the usual waffle about quality etc., what caught my eye was the Evocati bit - does this mean 3.1 has been in the hands of the Chosen since mid-February and they've just been exceptionally conscientious and NDA-honouring in not letting on? Or did the dog eat Chris' homework again?

EDIT: I see the citizens are ahead of me again
 
Last edited:
I have no idea about how games are constructed (well, not since the BBC Micro at any rate). So is traversing a TCP stack normal, or can a faster client/server interconnect be implemented for a purely single-player game (S42)?

Well, I'm not a game developer (unless hobby projects count), but I have been at various times in my career a p2p protocol developer, general network developer, OS developer, distributed application developer, but never on Windows, so pinch of salt. In answer to your question, yes, you can use a lighter transport than TCP where the client and server are both on the same machine. This can give performance advantages where you have high throughput. However, whereas on *nix the semantics of using TCP sockets vs local sockets are very similar, on Windows, the local IPC mechanisms are somewhat different to the network ones. I would not be surprised if Windows developers would forgo the efficiency of a local transport if it meant additional work to abstract the differences between TCP and COM or named pipes.

In any case, independently of the transport used, if the (local) server is implemented inefficiently and causes the client to wait on it, the game will not perform well (locally or in multiplayer mode).
 
I still don't get how any ship can be considered done at this time given Item 2.0 is not fully implemented, and many of the gameplay elements and functionalities attached to ships are yet to be seen.

That's the funny part. Even given very generous and liberal definitions of of “done”, the game is a trash-heap of bits, where nothing that is “done” actually sticks together as a coherent game. This is the best-case interpretation, and it's so far from any degree of a “good case” (definitely not the superlative degree) that the applicability of the term is highly questionable. :D
 
Maybe they will meet their 3.1 deadline by changing the text from "3.0" to "3.1" and pushing everything else back to 3.2 ;-)

Really, with the whole “quarterly releases rather than feature-bound releases” promise being as vague as it is, that would probably be their best option: instead of pushing out 3.0.a.2.γαε.buildA.revC or whatever, they just label that particular bugfix of the polygon culling algorithm as 3.1 and release it. I mean, who's going to complain if CIG actually complies with the schedule in the most literal manner possible? :D
 
Maybe they will meet their 3.1 deadline by changing the text from "3.0" to "3.1" and pushing everything else back to 3.2 ;-)

That's the logical extension of sticking to a fixed release schedule - anything which doesn't work/lacks the required fidelity gets pushed into the next release. The calendar becomes the master, not the game.

Joking aside, I get why they would want to move to a fixed release schedule, but given it's CIG and Chris Roberts we're talking about here, there's every chance (like the rushed 3.0 release) that it will backfire, unless they have some very strong project management in place, and a CEO who is willing to let the devs do their job.

So backfire it is, then.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Looking back to something CR said in a long post about the performance of 3.0 back in December 2017:

Ignore the usual waffle about quality etc., what caught my eye was the Evocati bit - does this mean 3.1 has been in the hands of the Chosen since mid-February and they've just been exceptionally conscientious and NDA-honouring in not letting on? Or did the dog eat Chris' homework again?

EDIT: I see the citizens are ahead of me again

Either 3.1 is in fact delayed (shock!) or the testing phase is shrinked significantly to meet Q1 (to be honest, given the disastrous state of what CIG releases each time, not sure testing is done, or needed, at all). Either of these two scenarios would show how unprofessional and recklessly Chris Roberts manages this poor project.

He just does not give a damn about both his own team and the backers. The short termism and narrow mind is appalling.
 
Last edited:
Still so sad seeing posts like this going crazy over "the unbelievable scale" of the game and it's 'verse - has clearly never seen the Elite galmap.

It limps along supported by ignorance.

Scale? 1 planet and 3 moons? Wow.... some people live i a bubble i guess.

I've had someone recently on reddit banging on about how SC is doing stuff that no other game is doing or has done, revolutionary and all that. Its like the rest of the gaming world doesn't exist for them.

Meanwhile i've got another guy who is comparing ED at launch with SC now trying to show how SC has more features already. I mean, totally disingenious.

Looking back to something CR said in a long post about the performance of 3.0 back in December 2017:



Ignore the usual waffle about quality etc., what caught my eye was the Evocati bit - does this mean 3.1 has been in the hands of the Chosen since mid-February and they've just been exceptionally conscientious and NDA-honouring in not letting on? Or did the dog eat Chris' homework again?

EDIT: I see the citizens are ahead of me again

The thread got downvote bombed as well. Nobody can question the holy Roberts!
 
Either 3.1 is in fact delayed (shock!) or the testing phase is shrinked significantly to meet Q1...

I reckon the latter - but probably as a result of there not being a huge amount of stuff needing testing in 3.1, all the difficult stuff having been kicked down the road into 3.2 or beyond to meet the schedule.

Anyway, we'll see when March 31st rolls round (that's March 31st 2018, for the avoidance of doubt).
 
Scale? 1 planet and 3 moons? Wow.... some people live i a bubble i guess.

I've had someone recently on reddit banging on about how SC is doing stuff that no other game is doing or has done, revolutionary and all that. Its like the rest of the gaming world doesn't exist for them.

Meanwhile i've got another guy who is comparing ED at launch with SC now trying to show how SC has more features already. I mean, totally disingenious.

History of gaming:

Wing Commander -> Freelancer -> Star Citizen

The rest is just noise
 
Still so sad seeing posts like this going crazy over "the unbelievable scale" of the game and it's 'verse - has clearly never seen the Elite galmap.

It limps along supported by ignorance.

To be fair that particular guy did admit when asked further down in the tread, that it is his first open world space game - so yes, he hasn't seen Elite's galmap.

I can only imagine his head would explode if he actually played a released open world space game. (Older or newer ones)
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom