The Star Citizen Thread v8

[TenakaFurey]

No space game ever has delivered the scope that SC has promised. Dreams and promises don't count. What is your point?

That other developers have the good sense to work within the physical and software limitations.

How to put it simply?

CIG is "trying" to create the Holy Grail of game development. They are trying to create an entire world...an entire universe...with its own look and feel and rules.

I applaud them for that. That's part of what makes Star Citizen so appealing. Here is Chris Roberts...a legendary developer....creator of Freelancer and Wing Commander....and he has a dream.

But they are pretending that dream can be realised. It can't.

Creating a universe is what games developers do. Star Citizens scope is no greater than that of any other game. The key issue is gameplay and game mechanics...and if those are in place, they'd work just as well within a city as they would on a planet.

Considering this is a PC game, the exact rendering budget would depend on what hardware the end user has. So they would have to deliver multiple levels of detail in any case, if they want any sort of scalability.

That isn't the point.

Any CPU only has a certain number of processing cycles. These are used to perform calculations and tasks on a PC.

If CIG were to implement this or ANY new tech in the game, it needs to know two things. First...the CPU cycles the new technology will require. Most importantly, it needs to know the CPU cycles it has already spent out of its budget.

In CIGs case....it cannot know the budget because the basic criteria for the game have not been set. CIG cannot even tell us how many players it is designing its instances to hold because it hasn't decided yet. How many players per instance will affect the quality of the graphics...more ships and players means more pixels to move. It will affect network traffic....more players and ships means more information of interest to send to other players. How many players per instance will affect server resources...more players and ships means an exponential increase in potential interactions which the servers need to calculate and then react to.

And so on.

Without knowing the basic criteria for the game, without knowing the likely impact on performance, the best CIG can do is add the technology and see how it affects performance, to see how it impacts the game. And quite possibly, depending on how their assets have been created, they'd have to spend a huge amount of resources reworking those assets to take best advantage of the technology.

And that is something CIG would do because keeping the ships looking good is the one thing they seem to be doing. Even when they shouldn't be.

CIG said it themselves. SC is not following standard development practises and keeping what is a PREALPHA playable and polished and optimised is eating up a huge amount of resources simply to keep it playable and polished and optimised.

This, instead of game development.

In short....CIG should have SOME idea of their rendering budget. Both of what they have for minimum, recommended, expected and maximum speed. They can use that budget to determine if they have the freedom to add stuff like RTX.

But...they can't have an idea of their budget because their basic specs haven't been nailed down so they don't know what their required usage will be.

So the only way they can see if RTX will work is to implement it and toss it if it doesn't work.

 

[Captain N]

“Supposed to be” doesn't cut it.
What it does fits with SC's scope, unlike SC itself.
Same with EVE (which, btw, has had both planetary landings and cockpit views). Same with KSP.

But the games you mentioned are released games, mostly already in their final form, or very close to it.

SC is still under development, and at least has a chance to fulfill its promised scope. Whether it will, who knows? Like I said, I'll judge it when it's released.

EVE having planetary landings and cockpit views sounds like a plain lie to me, it didn't have those things the last time I tried, which was in last year I believe. Are you confusing it for some of the related games released under the same umbrella brand, like Valkyrie and whatever that FPS game on the consoles was called? They were separate games, and not mainline EVE Online. I think SC backers will be on the barricades if it turns out the FPS and planetary landing portions of the game will be released only as separate games on some different platform!

Nothing SC does hasn't been done before,

Perhaps but not all of those things have been done in the same game. That's kind of the whole point of SC, or so I thought.

No game has delivered what SC dreams of is a nonsensical statement because you can apply that to anything. No game has delivered what SQ1 dreamed of either, or EVE, or ED, or SpaceWar or any creative product ever made — that's just the nature of the creative process.

I'm not sure what you think is nonsensical about it. It is a statement that is literally true - no game has delivered what SC has promised to deliver. That's why some people await it with religious fervour, like some kind of a messianic game to end all games.

It's also not nonsensical in relation to the statement it was originally a response to - your argument that the game's long development cycle is unusual for a game of that scope, and some kind of a proof of the developers' incompetence. I called that into question; the very reason it has such a long development cycle, and why it's missing its deadlines, is precisely the game's unrealistic, almost unprecedentedly massive scope. I believe there is a reason why games like this are not commonly made.

You were the one trying to suggest that SC's dreams mattered in some way.

No I wasn't, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

I was responding to you, claiming that every "ambitious space game since the 1980s" has had the same scope and vision, which I understand is an exaggeration, though I'm sure many of them originally started out trying to go for the same thing SC is trying to do. It didn't seem irrelevant to you then.

The point is, none of them succeeded at anywhere close to full realisation of that scope, so as dreams they will remain.

Whether SC will realise those dreams, the jury is out on that. I'll judge the final game.

 

[frostypaw]

... does not give you true freedom to explore an open galaxy. Not even close to what SC is supposed to be.

That's honestly not even close to what SC is supposed to be - it's 100 fixed systems, not a galaxy at all - not even ED's bubble. It's a neighbourhood. SC's planets will only have a handful of "pre-determined, handcrafted locations" too.

SC really isn't promising that much more in terms of a world and what you can do in it that hasn't been done before in various configurations. The point where it goes pear-shaped is when they start claiming it'll be a 1000 persons or more per server with everyone in one instance and AI that's smart and human enough for whole cities of NPCs to exist with personal lives, jobs and factories to go to and the rest.

The devil is in the detail not in the scope. All part of the alleged fidelity that was going to be way beyond what everyone else was doing with fully modelled blood flow to ship internals down to fuel lines and electronic components all individually damage modelled - stuff claimed to be in only to turn out to be nonsense. Space was just a If/Else test when a button was pressed.

 

[ianw]

Perhaps but not all of those things have been done in the same game. That's kind of the whole point of SC, or so I thought.

But they're not being done in the same game at the moment by SC.

They're trying to implement things bit by bit without a great deal of success so far by all accounts.

What they have now doesn't work very well at all and that's before they've attempted (or even planned apparently in some cases) all the other things that everyone mentions when talking about SC it as if it's just a formality - just a matter of time, yet all the evidence of what they've done so far seems to suggest otherwise (I realise you have acknowledged they may have to cut stuff and they may not succeed).

 

[Tippis]

But the games you mentioned are released games, mostly already in their final form, or very close to it.

…and, as such, puts SC's grand-standing to shame. Not only does SC not have an unprecedented scope; it has all been done already. Released game offer what SC hopes (but really has no chance ) to offer. Fans of the game have a nasty tendency of moving the goalposts whenever this inconvenient fact comes up. Oh, but it doesn't have the graphics, or it doesn't have [misrepresented feature, often some warped version of “seamlessness”] or it doesn't have [fantasy tech], or it doesn't have any myriad of other incremental things that SC hasn't really promised either and which are often physically impossible or which just has no bearing on the scope (eg. the type of camera).

EVE having planetary landings and cockpit views sounds like a plain lie to me

Dust and new camera — implementations of the original scope asking for those very things. Just because CCP delivered them in ways that weren't the customers' liking does not mean they weren't delivered. Part of the scope of EVE was space legs and planetary combat and all the usual guff. CCP delivered all of it in various bolted-on packages. It turns out that most of the guff people think they want don't actually fit in a game about internet spaceships — a lesson other companies might want to look into…

Perhaps but not all of those things have been done in the same game.

Yes they have.
Again, CoD:IW does it all. KSP does it all if you want it to. Space Engineers. AFF. Hell, if you really want to make some SC fan throw a fit, we might as well add Derek's games to the list — they do it… badly, but it's all there. [haha]

I'm not sure what you think is nonsensical about it.

It's nonsensical quite literally: it has no meaning. There is no sense that can be derived from it. It's a pointless tautological platitude that can be applied to anything. It has zero informational value because it is inherently true for every creative endeavour throughout the history of mankind. You might as well say “Chris wrote words” and you'd have a more useful and meaningful description of what SC is.

It's also not nonsensical in relation to the statement it was originally a response to - your argument that the game's long development cycle is unusual for a game of that scope, and some kind of a proof of the developers' incompetence.

The point is: the scope is normal. Its development cycle is abnormal by any measure. Its development practices — which offer an answer to that abnormal cycle — can only be parallelled by some of gaming's most famous development failures.

On top of that, and I keep repeating this: nothing SC has done, shown, or promised is unprecedented. It has all been done before. It has all been promised before. It has all taken far less time than SC has used to not even reach its concept stage. This is what proves the developers' incompetence. Well, their incompetence and their ignorance of the world of gaming, since they keep making these laughably uninformed and demonstrably false claims about the (not actual) never-been-done-before:ness of the latest thing they've decided to copy from existing games.

No I wasn't, and I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

The fact that you brought up SC's rather common scope in defence of its abnormal development time. As if dreams mattered, especially when CIG has failed to do what so many others have managed to do in far less time.

SC's scope is a twice-as-large Freelancer with a bog-standard FPS bolted on. That, as far as scope goes, is decidedly mediocre, and really not particularly different from the scope of the original Freelancer.

 

[Captain N]

Sure it's a not a full, realistically scaled galaxy - neither was the one in the original Elite. It's still hundred star systems, with landable planets.

It still sounds larger than any open-ended vehicle based game that actually let's you disembark and explore on foot, and presents all its locations in FPS level graphical detail. Especially any such game that also has massively scaled multiplayer.

 

[TenakaFurey]

Are you referring to the space version of CoD? Infinity Wars or whatever it was called? I haven't played it. I was not under the impression it was even an open-world MMO, let alone one with an interstellar scale?

The big nasty secret is that there us NO interstellar scale in a game. A planet or solar system is a collection of data points that simply allows it to be rendered to create a place for the player to stand on.

If you can create one planet, you can create trillions. A long time if you handcraft them...automating it results in procedural generation.

That's why ED was able to create a galaxy so quickly.

And this is part of the reason why SC backers seem so...ill informed.

Creating planets is relatively easy. Compared to what Star Citizen is promising, it's childs play. The scope that matters is the scope that pertains to gameplay. Not that the planet stuff isn't necessary....it is, especially for a space game, as it is what creates the universe. But you seem to be making the same assumption that creating an interstellar play area is difficult. That because CIG has promised 150 systems with thousands of planets, that that scope is important. That it is impressive.

It isn't.

What WOULD have been impressive, in a different manner, would be if CIG had kept its "promise" about handcrafting these worlds. That would have been time consuming but in the unlikely event they achieved it, impressive.

Of course, these days they are all talk about procedural generation but they haven't even created one system yet.

COD IW is a game that has just about all the major features promised by SC. Its gameplay is different because its a different type of game but the lack of planets is not a major point of differentiation. CODIW demonstrates the tech and skill necessary to create a gameworld and planetary creation using PG systems isn't difficult.

ME is linear story-based RPG where you can only land on certain pre-determined, handcrafted locations on planets and does not give you true freedom to explore an open galaxy. Not even close to what SC is supposed to be.

SC is a game limited to 150 systems so there is no galaxy for you to explore. And in fact...that fact makes a mockery of claims wrt exploration. You complain about having to land st pre determined locations...but have you even read about what Star Citizen is planning to do? Look at that city world in the demo. Flying over the city the way shown was something the finished game isn't likely to allow. Most of the buildings will be fake and inaccessible and players will be landing at designated landing pads.

EVE only released a miniscule stump of space leg type play, didn't really have any actual gameplay associated with it (and eventually removed it, from what I hear)

Yeah. Its gone. SC is making the same mistake. It doesn't have the content...yet...to justify the work put into space legs.

 

[Captain N]

But they're not being done in the same game at the moment by SC.

That wasn't even my point. It's a game in development. They have a plan to have those things in the same game.

…and, as such, puts SC's grand-standing to shame. Not only does SC not have an unprecedented scope; it has all been done already. Released game offer what SC hopes (but really has no chance ) to offer.....

Relates to me, how?

Dust and new camera — implementations of the original scope asking for those very things. Just because CCP delivered them in ways that weren't the customers' liking does not man they weren't delivered.

Weren't delivered, in the way that would satisfy backers of SC, and not in the way CIG has presented these features. You are the one moving goalposts now. If Eve didn't implement the scope of SC, then it didn't.

CoD:IW

Just to check, I went to read the wikipedia for that. It appears it has a single player campaign, class-based multiplayer PVP... and co-op mode with zombies?

What the hell?

KSP does it all if you want it to

No it doesn't.

Space Engineers.

Minecraft in space. Last I checked, it had some barely asteroid sized "planets" floating around? And multiplayer, with what, 4 players on a server?

Derek Smart

Good joke.

The point is: the scope is normal.

Wrong. You have failed to provide a single example of a game that does everything in SC's scope.

On top of that, and I keep repeating this: nothing SC has done, shown, or promised is unprecedented. It has all been done before.

And I seem to have to repeat that those things have never been all done in the same game.

SC's scope is a twice-as-large Freelancer with a bog-standard FPS bolted on. That, as far as scope goes, is decidedly mediocre, and really not particularly different from the scope of the original Freelancer.

So you agree Freelancer did not have a bog-standard FPS bolted on, and therefore had a smaller scope.

 

[Tippis]

It still sounds larger than any open-ended vehicle based game that actually let's you disembark and explore on foot, and presents all its locations in FPS level graphical detail. Especially any such game that also has massively scaled multiplayer.

That just sounds like Battlefield with a more cumbersome UI (which, indeed, was one of the most important lessons drawn from EVE's foray into space legs).

Relates to me, how?

So you're willing to give up your argument that SC's scope is in any way relevant?

If Eve didn't implement the scope of SC, then it didn't.

…but it did.

CoD:IW has even more. KSP has everything if you want to it to (and yes it does… I was invading bases in other star systems in 2015). And again, Space Engineers does it all (and now that you mention it, I'd be shocked to learn that there isn't a Minecraft mod that allows the same).

So yeah. It's all been done, even in the same game. Even by Derek, as much as people hate it when that happens. Adding additional constraints to suddenly make those game “not count” for some arbitrary reason does not change this fact, nor does it change the fact that SC's scope was never particularly grand to begin with. Like I said: an expanded Freelancer (and just look at what happened there in the end with these people at the wheel…).

 

[Captain N]

You complain about having to land st pre determined locations...

I'm not going to even bother to address the rest of your post (most of it is pointless arguing against straw men) but I'm going to have to correct you on this.

I did not, in any way whatsoever, "complain" about having to land at pre-determined locations in ME. I stated it as a fact, because that's what the game is.

Mass Effect 2 is in fact one of my favourite games in the RPG genre. And big part of what made it work and enabled it to shine was its carefully limited scope.

 

[ianw]

That wasn't even my point. It's a game in development. They have a plan to have those things in the same game.

Which is precisely the thing that ought to worry people.

They appear to be struggling badly with some of the basics that are commonplace in other games and that's after 6 or 7 years (give or take CR's initial beeesss about development time).

Yet some people choose to believe that they will somehow to fix the basics - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary so far - and then deliver all the more complex things things they've talked about without breaking the basics.

It can only be described as the triumph of hope over experience.

 

[Captain N]

So you're willing to give up your argument that SC's scope is in any way relevant?

Relevant to what? I'm genuinely interested in what you think my argument was? It doesn't even sound like you have understood a single point I have made.

Some of the games you keep bringing up could maybe be said to have a similar scope to SC, if you use imagination and ignore the fact they are indie games made with shoestring budgets, with indie graphics, and nowhere near the AAA level production quality SC is going for (which is also part of its scope, and explains why it's taking so long to develop) The one that has similar production quality, is the Call of Duty one, but it isn't even an open world game? How on earth is that comparable?

 

[Tippis]

Relevant to what?

Any comparison. Anything, really. It is certainly not a valid excuse for anything.

Some of the games you keep bringing up could maybe be said to have a similar scope to SC, if you use imagination and ignore the fact they are indie games made with shoestring budgets, with indie graphics

…none of which matter. They still deliver on the scope SC promises. They all did it in vastly less time than it took for SC to even reach its core concept stage. Some of them are also AAA games, again done in less time than SC required. SC might be aiming for (but failing to achieve) slightly more visual fidelity, but that shouldn't slow them down — CIG is far larger and better funded than these small studios, after all.

By any measure, SC's scope — even if it mattered — is not something that excuses or explains the glacial pace of development, or its backwards direction, or the consistent failure to deliver anything that would suggest that CIG will be able to achieve what so many others have managed to achieve under worse conditions.

 

[Captain N]

AAA scope != indie game scope. Not even close.

The only AAA games on your list were Cod and ME (maybe EVE), neither of which is an open world MMO with SC's scope.

Scope is basically one of the very few things that do matter to the development time of a project. It's mainly a factor of scope and budget, how long it will take to develop a game. Larger scope = more money and time you will need to realise it.

Size of the play area is something that heavily determines the scope, but so does the quality and density of unique graphical assets in that play area. Multiply one with the other, and you have an idea of how large the project is, and how much money and developers you'll need.

It sounds like you are in complete denial of even basic facts, and I wouldn't be surprised if actual fanboys / white knights of SC (which I'm not one of - I'm rather skeptical of the whole project to say the least, in case you didn't suss that out already) won't take you seriously.

 

[Tippis]

AAA scope != indie game scope. Not even close.

Scope is scope. Production level is just that — a measure of the size of the production, and is not a factor in the scope. There are indie games out there that vastly out-scopes even the most ambitious AAA-title. An AAA studio can put more people and polish to work on a given scope, but that does not change the scope itself.

Scope is not the size of the production; it's the size of the idea, and while production level can certainly affect which ideas are feasible to produce, the idea itself does not change.

Scope is basically one of the very few things that do matter to the development time of a project.

…which means that SC's scope — being comparable to that of many other games — does not explain or excuse the glacial pace at which they're development of the components of that scope.

Again, at the heart of it all, SC isn't a particularly complex game. It tries (and fails) to leverage some buzzword-friendly tech, and that creates a few additional hurdles, but that's just the funny thing: the part of scope that would warrant and explain prolonged development — i.e. a huge set of game mechanics; a complex interplay of dynamics; a broad support for vastly different game aesthetics — are things they haven't even gotten to yet. They're ridiculously slow before they've even started on the slow part.

They have yet to figure out what level of quality they can offer; what amount of assets they need to populate their world; what size world they will need to offer to supply sufficient content for the gameplay (that they also haven't decided on). Other games with similar scope have figured out all the difficult parts in far less time — they have actually been completed in far less time — whereas CIG is just running around in circles and never getting anywhere. Scope determines the play area, not the other way around. Scope determines what goes in the play area, not the other way around. SC's scope is, on the whole, pretty modest, and the problem CIG is facing — as mentioned from the very start — is that they have started fiddling with irrelevant details before they have actually sat down and figured out what the scope they've decided on actually means in terms of underlying structures that need to be created for all those details to have any purpose and meaning.

 

[ZeeWolf]

The word "scope" implies some sort of formal design has gone on. I thought Star Citizen's design document was essentially Chris Roberts yacking on YouTube for days on end? I've never seen any formal identification of the project's scope..it's just..whatever isn't it?

 

[TenakaFurey]

But the games you mentioned are released games, mostly already in their final form, or very close to it.

Largely irrelevant. SC has had 6 years or so of development. As with other games, its going to get judged on its budget, development time and current status as well as what its achieved.

Tetris is a great game...but it you told me it took $200 million and a decade to create then it'd still be fun, but not quite so impressive.

CIG has managed to spend 6 years...7? 5?....and perhaps $150 million creating little more than a tech demo that I'd expect after no more than 2 at a fraction of the cost. They have nearly 500 employees but have an output that some single coders and modders are putting to shame.

That the game is still in development doesn't answer the question about WHY it is still in development.

erhaps but not all of those things have been done in the same game. That's kind of the whole point of SC, or so I thought.

It hasn't been done in SC either and doesn't look like it ever will. SoT comes close though. As does ED. As does NMS.

I'm not sure what you think is nonsensical about it. It is a statement that is literally true - no game has delivered what SC has promised to deliver. That's why some people await it with religious fervour, like some kind of a messianic game to end all games.

You are missing the point.

No game has delivered what SC plans or claims to deliver...because no game can. Even SC won't deliver because a lot of what is "promised" exists only in the minds of its backers, fuelled by deliberately vague statements and goals from CIG and a wishlist that is copied from a dozen other games.

What do you want from SC?
The ability to go to new worlds? Play with and against other players? Have FPS and ship combat? Be able to wander around your ship and interact with other players?

Replace planets with islands and you have SoT. Limit the interaction with other players and you have NMS. ED has everything SC has and more...only better...and literally could have FPS up and running tomorrow if it so chose.

You are do focussed on "scope" that you don't realise that these limitations, such as they are, exist because of deliberate choice rather than lack of ability.

ED doesn't have FPS because space legs requires actual content to justify it. Something even CIG needs to learn.

It's also not nonsensical in relation to the statement it was originally a response to - your argument that the game's long development cycle is unusual for a game of that scope, and some kind of a proof of the developers' incompetence. I called that into question; the very reason it has such a long development cycle, and why it's missing its deadlines, is precisely the game's unrealistic, almost unprecedentedly massive scope. I believe there is a reason why games like this are not commonly made.

Yes....they are a niche product and don't sell well.

The reason the game has a long development cycle is...at best....managerial incompetence.

At heart....SC is a Space Sim like Elite, with Elites mechanics, with added FPS gameplay.

Or it is SoT with a scifi setting.

Or NMS with better multiplayer interaction.

It is CODIW with planetary generation used to create planets

It is MEA with bigger play areas

It is SWTOR with a first person viewpoint.

All of these games had a scope and scale at least as big as that of SC and most were developed in shorter time frames, with fewer
people and at lower cost than it has taken CIG to create a glorified tech demo riddled with bugs and performance issues. To create a PREALPHA

The only game to come close in terms of cost would be SWTOR....and it was effectively creating 9 games in one.

For CIG to take SIX years and perhaps $150 million to get where they are today....with next to nothing to show for that beyond a half finished proof of concept tech demo...is proof that something has gone wrong with development.

We already know they are developing the game in a stupidly incompetent manner. There is no question or doubt about that.

That doesn't mean the game won't be released. Well...A game.

If 3.0 had taken $10 million to create, and 18-24 months...it'd be truly impressive.

But it didn't. Ten times the money and three times the time. THAT is the proof of incompetence

Whether it reaches the level of criminality as some suggest I can't say. I doubt it...IMO CR et co are simply taking every opportunity to legally gouge the backers. So retroactively paying himself millions and then selling the IP to himself for apparently millions more...dodgy, but legal.

But I think he is seriously trying to develop the game at the same time. But in an incompetent manner, exacerbated by his desire to enrich himself as much as he can.

This games scope is not unrealistic.

What is planned that ED or NMS for example, don't have? Nothing.

FPS? Space combat? Trade? Resource gathering? Player interaction? NPCs?

You might not like how those game implement those features or the mechanics involved...but they are effectively there.

These games have already fulfilled the scope promised by SC....or at least, could do so quickly if they chose.

So trying to blame the delay on an ambitious or unrealistic scope is nonsense

We KNOW CIG are ignoring best practise. We know CIG have shifting goals and an expanding feature list. We know CIG are polishing and optimising a PreAlpha fir general play. We know CIG are having to rewrite huge chunks of code because of bad design or rework game assets that are outdated because they tell us.

So we know the management is incompetent.

 

[Tippis]

[words]

Stop writing sensible. I run out of rep every time you do this. [mad]

Yes. This is the whole matter in a nutshell as far as the scope argument goes.

 

[TenakaFurey]

AAA scope != indie game scope. Not even close.

The only thing a AAA game has is budget. Doesn't matter what the game is, once you start talking money, it becomes a AAA game.

Scope is basically one of the very few things that do matter to the development time of a project. It's mainly a factor of scope and budget, how long it will take to develop a game. Larger scope = more money and time you will need to realise it.

NMS took 12 people 3 years and less than $20 million.

The big differences between what SC plans to have and what NMS actually has and has implemented are...

art style
game mechanics
the multiplayer aspect is very undeveloped.

Size of the play area is something that heavily determines the scope

Its impact is actually minimal. Size of the play area affects issues such as game play, certain game mechanics and performance but little else.

but so does the quality and density of unique graphical assets in that play area. Multiply one with the other, and you have an idea of how large the project is, and how much money and developers you'll need.

At this stage I am starting to wonder if you truly understand what the "scope" of a game actually is.

Telling us that SC will have space flight and FPS is part of the scope. Telling us that graphical density and quality is part of the scope?

Not so much

 

[McGlashan]

But I thought we were specifically talking about refactoring textures/materials for real-time raytracing. What do you think is there, specifically, that needs to be changed for this tech to work?

Oh, right, you were just generally venting at CIG out of frustration and uninformed cynicism and not even discussing the actual topic I was talking about.

No, you were talking about that, because you misread/misinterpreted what I actually said, which is that I expected CIG would use engine modifications as yet another excuse to go back to the drawing board (an opinion based on CIG's track record), as me saying that going back to the drawing board would be a necessary result of incorporating RT technology, because you clearly feel qualified to dispute the latter argument even though I didn't make it. But I'm a 20 year visual effects industry veteran, head of lighting at one of the world's largest vfx houses, I've been ray tracing since the 90s, and I am not "uninformed", so you're wasting your time.