So far...I haven't been able to leave Area 18 due to exploding...several rage quits later...I still haven't managed to leave. I'm out for this patch.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
"steepened heightmaps"?
Its even worth posting about? Its super trivial stuff.
Are CIG trying to claim this is some sort of never been done before achievement?
Sorry, are we meant to be in awe of CIG learning how to tweak some variables?
Maybe base your decision on gameplay rather than how pretty it looks?
What heresy is this?!
Comes down to preference. How pretty it looks is as valid as if you are looking for depth and complexity. The confusion begins when you apply visual representation to gameplay quality or selectively digest information based on that quality rather ̶t̶̶h̶̶e̶̶n̶ than their real value (Sorry Sanya, I instintively picked the wrong one, went back to your explanation and corrected it but I dont think I ll ever learn this /sigh. Is this a biggie that irritates people? If not I think I ll just "wing it" Star Citizen style ^^)
Nah, its okay, once the mountains are the right height everything falls into place, bartenders stop hovering, ships gain mass, murderous elevators and ramps are brought to justice, Asp will get his USB, 10 gazillion player instances will be stable and the verse - both real and SC's version - will be in harmony.
The reason for that is those are broader trends in SC that are worth paying attention to. Cosmetic additions continue unabated, but core gameplay tech and related gameplay loops continue to falter and languish...
It’s something of a meme now that hardcore fans of the game end up posting a litany of cosmetic additions, because that’s the main thing there is to post about
For reference, that tiny pipsqueak moon we have (as far as the overall scale of space goes) has a surface area of 3.8×10⁷ km². Let's heightmap that out to a horribly coarse resolution of 10×10m. That means we need 3.8×10¹¹ data points. Let's also use equally horribly coarse 32bit values to represent heights (because normals and slopes are too advanced), which means 4 bytes per data point.
Oh my… that's 1.52×10¹² bytes or as it's perhaps more commonly known, 1.38 terabytes of data. For awful surface differentiation and not very capable representations of heights. Increase it to 1×1m resolution, and we now have 138 terabytes, for a single very tiny body. Add in something more sensible for the heights and slopes, and that's another byte or eight per grid square. That's fine if you're GIS:ing it up over at NASA; not so fine if you just want to canyon-blast in your noclip ship.
Oh my… that's 1.52×10¹² bytes or as it's perhaps more commonly known, 1.38 terabytes of data. For awful surface differentiation and not very capable representations of heights. Increase it to 1×1m resolution, and we now have 138 terabytes, for a single very tiny body. Add in something more sensible for the heights and slopes, and that's another byte or eight per grid square. That's fine if you're GIS:ing it up over at NASA; not so fine if you just want to canyon-blast in your noclip ship.
Yep true, it just feels like he’s not serious at that point, or working off insider info. Just saying some of the assets used are that old.
They could have picked up the assets to re-use at any point in theory. (Although ToW does absolutely scream Calders-quick-monetisation-of-existing-assets
)I just post what I find interesting about the alpha. I expect analyse from you, nothing more.
No they don't claim that. They had just said they have improved their heightmap nothing more.
For a flight sim, my first criteria is how pretty it looks. If it's pretty I try it. If the gameplay is ok I play it. But I already know DCS is a big reference in the flight sim genre. So the gameplay will be OK.
I think it's a good step in the right direction. It feels like flying ships, and not like moving assets in a 3D editor. So yeah, FPS players will hate it. Pilots will love it.
Also ships may now move in a believable manner, and not stopping mid air with the power of magic.
That is the whole point.. And if they do things properly, winged ships in atmo should turn much tighter.
That's why we have VTOL thrusters on big ships. Again a step in the right direction. Freighters like the Cat at full load should take a few kilometers to change direction... These should be straight line flyers mostly, not nimble combat fighters.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="LittleAnt, post: 8602532, member: 257049"
For a flight sim, my first criteria is how pretty it looks. If it's pretty I try it. If the gameplay is ok I play it. But I already know DCS is a big reference in the flight sim genre. So the gameplay will be OK.
[/QUOTE]
You will find DCS in sim mode very unforgiving, but rewarding when you eventually get it right.
For a flight sim, my first criteria is how pretty it looks. If it's pretty I try it. If the gameplay is ok I play it. But I already know DCS is a big reference in the flight sim genre. So the gameplay will be OK.
[/QUOTE]
You will find DCS in sim mode very unforgiving, but rewarding when you eventually get it right.
The multibox mission is new but I don't think it will replace the one box delivery mission. I will look at the release.
I often put 3/4 boxes without glitch in the starter Aurora so at least the Aurora can handle it.
Lmao. That explains so much. What a silly approach to a genre where looking pretty is — by far — the least important detail.
May I ask, why is it you keep thinking about playing these “sim” games when simulation isn't the attraction?
That's because in every other development studio under the sun, gameplay comes first, and then the visuals gets polished. Polishing, and then repolishing, the visuals first, means that CIG's wasting money. They'll have to redo the height maps once again, when they finally get a few more game loops up and running, and discover that the current iteration doesn't work/look/interact well with the new stuff.
Quite frankly, this is the equivalent of "Look at the shiny thing! It's shiny! Don't you want to pay money to get the shiny thing???" Sorry, CIG. You lied through your teeth in 2012 through this tactic, and I'm not falling it for it a second time. I was very lucky to get my money out this disaster, and I'm not going to put it back in because you're still wasting it in fluff, rather than gameplay.
Show me the gameplay you promised I should've been enjoying since 2014, and then maybe I'll start taking a closer look. Right now, you're just polishing a turd.
I like FPS&sim games looking 'realistic' AND with good gameplay. I need both.Lmao. That explains so much. What a silly approach to a genre where looking pretty is — by far — the least important detail.
May I ask, why is it you keep thinking about playing these “sim” games when simulation isn't the attraction?
For other genre, graphics is less important for me. I love FTL or Undertale for instance.