The Star Citizen Thread v8

[Garix]

I love the way the ships still seem to have no mass or inertia or any kind of physics.

Been digging around various other forums looking at flight sims and found this gem from 2017

"Hello there.Maybe I should not make this thread but this game have incredible newtonian physics flight model every one different between ships and its true space flight sim.So if I am making mistake please delete this post.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com
If someone is interested use this code for your fresh start and 5000 uec in your wallet
STAR-****-****"

You're not suggesting that person may of misrepresented things are you?

I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

[Zetta]

Clive Johnson answered a few questions:

Q. Any chance we can do [bind culling] in a 3.2.x PTU build?
CJ: "Not my decision but I don't think you are likely to see Bind Culling in a 3.2.x PTU build. Without Object Container Streaming, Bind Culling causes loading stalls as entities enter the client's range. We're still working on being able to turn on Bind Culling in the PU, but even in the simpler test maps where we do have it working, the loading stalls are pretty frequent and noticeable. That's fine for developers, as it gives us a way to find and fix the bugs that Bind Culling/OCS will introduce while OCS is still being worked on, but it's probably not an experience most backers would want."

Q. Thanks sir, looking forward to the massive performance boost of 3.3 then
CJ: "Bind Culling and OCS should give us performance improvements on clients and that is, after all, one of the big reasons for doing them in the first place. But let's not count our chickens before they hatch. The only way to know for sure how much of difference BC/OCS will make is to finish implementing them and then measure the difference."

Q. I don’t want to be alarmist, however how would performance get to a point where the goals of the game as stated could be met without major improvements from those two methods? What are the other options?
CJ: "There are many ways to skin the performance cat. If we didn't do BC/OCS we'd find other ways to meet our goals. The point I was trying to make is that no one optimization is going to be the silver bullet. It's going to take a lot of different optimizations, each optimizing different areas of the game in different ways. We're confident we'll get there, it just takes a while."

Q. Something I've wondered a lot is what exactly OCS is. I mean, I know that it involves moving entity loading off the main thread and making entity loading asynchronous, but is there more to it than that? I've read a lot of claims, some more plausible-sounding than others, but I'm not aware of anything definitive from CIG on the matter.
CJ: "I don't work on Object Containers so take what I'm about to say with a pinch of salt.
My understanding is that an Object Container is an entity that contains other entities. What makes OCs special is that they are collapsible so we can unload the contents of an OC but keep the OC entity itself in memory. You can think of any large structure in the game (ships and even the solar system) as a hierarchy of OCs. These hierarchies of OCs form the skeletons of these structures and the engine can opt to load or unload the different parts. The skeleton is always there, but the meat on the bones can be stripped back if it isn't needed by a client. Possibly that was a bit of a gruesome analogy but I hope it helps get the idea across"

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...thread/so-bind-culling-was-moved-into-3-3-but

 

[zynaps]

CryEngine isn't designed - wasn't even intended - to support MMO style games. It's focussed on multiplayer, not MMO.

CryEngine was never MP focused. MP was a feature that was shoehorned into the engine because of publisher demand. Technically it's basically on the level of Doom (the original). Made for 8 players, everyone gets all the data about everyone. The simplest hack they could think of. In the beginning CryTek hired a lot of freshmen out of German college with basically zero game dev experience (cheap labor). They had some decent people on the rendering side, but shortcuts were made (throw everything on the GPU and let it sort it out). The engine is devoid of finesse but full of junior level code and design.

CryEngine started as a tech demo, then turned into an "game" engine because Nvidia was impressed and wanted a game. Then someone wanted MP, so they shoehorned it in. The engine is completely useless, not even Amazon has managed to do anything with it, in fact if you ask AAA game developers, Amazon have managed to make it even worse.

 

[Zetta]

Saw this posted on SA, is this for real?

Look at the amazingly bad state SQ42 is in:

"Vanduul AI progress is also continuing along in the prototype phase. Regarding Vanduul combat, a lot of work was done to previz the way they fight.​

What!? Prototyping, pre-viz stage?

The team also made some important strides on the Vanduul animation, creating a behavior set to provide a visual guide on how they will move and operate in Squadron 42.​

Oh good, more concepts

The emphasis was to make them as different from Humans as possible, so players have a completely different experience when fighting the Vanduul. The team is happy with the current results and are approaching full production for the Vanduul enemies. They also collaborated with other teams to get the Vanduul fully functional and ready for motion capture.​

They showed off a rebooted Vanduul model in December of 2016, how can they have gone 18 months and it not have any animations, AI or in-game functionality?

I think they rebooted SQ42 again, since the start of 2017. Like, remember when they showed the Driller and how it was the first of their new artstyle for the Vanduul ships, and then they never showed any of the others? I think they started talking about how the Vanduul artstyle has changed again.

 

[ZeeWolf]

Clive Johnson answered a few questions:....
But let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

We're talking about Star Citizen here right..hello? This game kind of relies on people counting them chickens to fund the darn thing and making videos talking extensively about how awesome those chickens will be.

 

[Garix]

We're talking about Star Citizen here right..hello? This game kind of relies on people counting them chickens to fund the darn thing and making videos talking extensively about how awesome those chickens will be.

I believe the chickens were refactored to turkeys...............

 

[AJW]

Star Chickizens:

 

[ianw]

Clifford aka Miku @CliffordakaMiku

8 Jun

Replying to @YongYea
Your title is false right out of the gate, @RobertsSpaceInd doesn’t just flat out charge us a $1K to access that page, it unlocks when a players have pledged up to that amount or if a person decides to purchase a $1K or above package. They mainly created that package for those of




​

Clifford aka Miku @CliffordakaMiku



us who want to consolidate our ship packages into one easy to scroll through line item. God I really wish people would do real journalism instead of click bait. Please do more research next time or ask for a studio tour from CIG so you can see for yourself the truth instead of
7:25 PM - Jun 8, 2018

• 3
• See Clifford aka Miku's other Tweets

​

So I was thinking the other day that this guy might be a PITA for constantly bragging about his spend - but at least he doesn't get shirty and insult people out of hand like so many others do.

Then I saw the above.

It absolutely doesn't cost 10 pounds to get in. But you can't get in unless you spend 10 pounds. If you spend 10 pounds you basically unlock the ability to get in.

And that right there is how they've managed to empty people's wallets on a continuing daily basis for years.

How can you even attempt to reason with someone who thinks like that (even if you wanted to)?

And he's just the tip of the whale iceberg.

It's fantastic! [big grin]

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Saw this posted on SA, is this for real?

What? Being skeptical of things posted on the SA forums?

Its a bit of a gamble. People do like to put their own twist on things, but the goons are pretty good at keeping track of things that have happened and that people have said. From what i've seen, they source a lot of their claims well with links to videos and posts by members of CIG.

And CIG do have a bit of a habit of erm.... being flexible with the truth.

If the goon who posted that linked to the sources, and you checked the sources... well, you can make up your own mind.

Disclaimer: I may or may not be a goon at this point. Hard to tell..... i don't think its like puberty though.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Clive Johnson answered a few questions:



https://robertsspaceindustries.com/...thread/so-bind-culling-was-moved-into-3-3-but

On my giddy aunt.

So basically they got a talking head to talk about something he has no clue about. Except to say its not going to be in any version of 3.2.

However, for close to year CIG have been saying bind culling is coming. The community has been looking forward to it. It was meant to be a part of the upcoming patch... but lo and behold, we now hear from this talking head that its useless without OCS anyway! So what the frig were they doing putting it on the roadmap for the patch anyway?

And then he follows it up by effectively saying that BC+OCS might not solve performance probably after all.

And people say goons make up stuff about CIG? Why make stuff up when CIG come out with such golden comments?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Clifford aka Miku @CliffordakaMiku

8 Jun

Replying to @YongYea
Your title is false right out of the gate, @RobertsSpaceInd doesn’t just flat out charge us a $1K to access that page, it unlocks when a players have pledged up to that amount or if a person decides to purchase a $1K or above package. They mainly created that package for those of




​

Clifford aka Miku @CliffordakaMiku



us who want to consolidate our ship packages into one easy to scroll through line item. God I really wish people would do real journalism instead of click bait. Please do more research next time or ask for a studio tour from CIG so you can see for yourself the truth instead of
7:25 PM - Jun 8, 2018

• 3
• See Clifford aka Miku's other Tweets

​

So I was thinking the other day that this guy might be a PITA for constantly bragging about his spend - but at least he doesn't get shirty and insult people out of hand like so many others do.

Then I saw the above.

It absolutely doesn't cost 10 pounds to get in. But you can't get in unless you spend 10 pounds. If you spend 10 pounds you basically unlock the ability to get in.

And that right there is how they've managed to empty people's wallets on a continuing daily basis for years.

How can you even attempt to reason with someone who thinks like that (even if you wanted to)?

And he's just the tip of the whale iceberg.

It's fantastic! [big grin]

In this case he is right though. There is a difference between 'you can only see product X if you give me $1000 for the privilege of seeing product X.', which is how yongyea implicitly frames it, and 'you can only see product X if you have spend $1000 on other stuff.'. Not quite sure why this even need to be framed this way, the entire thing is already so beyond silly that he didnt need to embellish it. That only gives fuels to people like Clifford.

 

[Ian Skippy]

On my giddy aunt.

So basically they got a talking head to talk about something he has no clue about. Except to say its not going to be in any version of 3.2.

However, for close to year CIG have been saying bind culling is coming. The community has been looking forward to it. It was meant to be a part of the upcoming patch... but lo and behold, we now hear from this talking head that its useless without OCS anyway! So what the frig were they doing putting it on the roadmap for the patch anyway?

And then he follows it up by effectively saying that BC+OCS might not solve performance probably after all.

And people say goons make up stuff about CIG? Why make stuff up when CIG come out with such golden comments?

Err, its just a dev who speaks honestly about what it is and what may or may not happen. He is being realistic, refuses to fuel hype and does everything you'd want from an honest dev. So you call him a 'talking head with no clue what he is talking about'. Nice. At least the people over at SA where you copy&pasted it from appreciated it in a more respectful manner. One member provided a pretty extensive explanation of these terms that completely support this assessment. It is also not the first time this has been claimed.

Oh well.

 

[VidarSnipes]

Err, its just a dev who speaks honestly about what it is and what may or may not happen. He is being realistic, refuses to fuel hype and does everything you'd want from an honest dev. So you call him a 'talking head with no clue what he is talking about'. Nice. At least the people over at SA where you copy&pasted it from appreciated it in a more respectful manner. One member provided a pretty extensive explanation of these terms that completely support this assessment. It is also not the first time this has been claimed.

Oh well.

And I imagine Auntie's point is that he's one of the very few CIG employees ready to forgo the cultivation of unrealistic expectations to speak of the state of the project, just like Ben Parry.

 

[McGlashan]

Err, its just a dev who speaks honestly

Devs who speak honestly are in short supply at CIG, there's no "just" about it. And before you get on your high horse I'm specifically referring to people who are willing to go on the record with their honesty, not people who are honest. A fundamental lack of honesty is only a prerequisite for board members, not regular developers.

Seriously, his days at CIG will be numbered if he doesn't learn to toe the party line; bringing the faithful down with ugly reality isn't going to sell jpegs. That tech that the zealots are pinning their hopes on not working out? Come up with a new buzzword that they can parrot on forums as if they have a clue what they're talking about, tell them it's scheduled for a couple of patches from now, and keep kicking that can down the road. He almost manages it by shifting the emphasis to OCS, but the trick is that you never, ever admit that anything you're currently working on will be anything less than revolutionary.

 

[Cobra1984]

Err, its just a dev who speaks honestly about what it is and what may or may not happen. He is being realistic, refuses to fuel hype and does everything you'd want from an honest dev. So you call him a 'talking head with no clue what he is talking about'. Nice. At least the people over at SA where you copy&pasted it from appreciated it in a more respectful manner. One member provided a pretty extensive explanation of these terms that completely support this assessment. It is also not the first time this has been claimed.

Oh well.

John Crewe was given scripted talking points before the live video with Lando, and whatever he failed to say Lando filled in directly after each answer, reading from the script.

Clive Johnson is answering questions without a script but also without technical insight or experience.

This is the way it's set up now after the 'ship theft' episode when a dev (I forget who) revealed there were no plans for stealing ships, leading to Lando having to give the party line that 'it was all still coming in the future'.

There's no accurate or truthful commentary on the state of development in any of these videos right now, with the exception of a couple of things John Crewe (to my surprise) slipped in - one of which caught Lando off guard.

The SA thread seems to be out of the loop.

 

[Cobra1984]

Devs who speak honestly are in short supply at CIG, there's no "just" about it.

They aren't allowed to, the dev q&a videos went bad for them. It's scripted answers now from the dev side.

It's in their contract that they have to do them.

If you've been paying attention you'll see the Q1 videos hyping up 3.1, then toward the end of Q1 the videos let you down gently with the 'reasons' for features slipping.

The Q2 videos hyped up 3.2 and included gameplay footage, now we're at the end of Q2 so we get a scripted let down video with 'reasons' for features slipping and the shown gameplay not included.

As we enter the beginning of Q3 expect hype videos and gameplay showing combat AI and wait for the letdown video to come in September, published to youtube on the same day the build goes to evocati.

There'll be another ship sale coinciding with the hype for Q3.

 

[TenakaFurey]

However, for close to year CIG have been saying bind culling is coming. The community has been looking forward to it. It was meant to be a part of the upcoming patch... but lo and behold, we now hear from this talking head that its useless without OCS anyway!

I have to admit being curious how they were going to solve such issues. NBC is useful, but it doesn't solve every issue and some of what they have been saying recently such as local data centres sounds intelligent, to anyone who doesn't understand networking or point out the flaws in the concepts

I suppose I should have guessed....they didn't. Doesn't make NBC any less important, but if their implementation doesn't work...or, more accurately, works but simply shifts the bottleneck...why hype it up so much?

Could it be that the engine is in a worse state than I presumed? I mean, I figured we wouldn't get the full impact of the netcode until it was all in and all working, but I figured they would at least have bandaided in NBC...probably by being generous with the distance calcs and slowly streaming in objects with 50km so they'd be present when needed.

It is important to get the performance to a decent level, given that hamfisted manner the game is being developed. NBC should have provided a meaningful boost by culling unneeded data....but if the game is essentially freezing whenever it loads in a new entity, something has gone very wrong with their design. If NBC now has to wait till OCS is ready, that's problematic.

Of course, IIRC, the new netcode was supposedly running perfectly in 2016 and just needed the OCS module to be finished. I guess I should stop giving CIG the benefit of the doubt rather than try to be fair and conservative.

And then he follows it up by effectively saying that BC+OCS might not solve performance probably after all.

It was always very unlikely that even fully functional, complete netcode would totally resolve SCs performance problems. As I see it, the engine has more wrong with it than just the netcode.

I would have expected a boost and I'd have expected a bit more FPS from their ongoing optimisation efforts. I'd expect increased stability and FPS closer to acceptable.

Why make stuff up when CIG come out with such golden comments?

This is the stuff they say in public. One wonders what they say in private.

 

[milligna]

I like when Lesnick lied about playing all the S42 missions. Years later they don't even have NPC AI worked out, but our favorite remote worker somehow managed to...

 

[PiLhEaD]

Err, its just a dev who speaks honestly about what it is and what may or may not happen. He is being realistic, refuses to fuel hype and does everything you'd want from an honest dev...

Agreed. I thought he came across well, calm and measured with little or no hyperbole. I can't help but think the whole project could benefit form more like him.

Do you think we'll ever hear from him again?

 

[metatheurgist]

Do you think we'll ever hear from him again?

He's already been refactored.