Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Ed02349]

…also, why the hell are they using heightmaps if the end goal is to create a couple of hundred reasonably sized planetary bodies? Have they sat down and calculated what that means in terms of data usage?

Come on now! Since when had CIG done anything efficiently?

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?

My thought exactly.

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.

Not really true. Ubisoft and EA had been focused on micro transaction for a while and adjust gameplay to encourage it. I think it was Activition that patented a frustration mechanic, matching players with more skilled opponents or people who bought in game items so they'd be more likely to buy in game items. BUT CR did say he wasn't doing what big publishers were doing. Maybe he meant macro transactions.

 

[Tippis]

I like FPS&sim games looking 'realistic' AND with good gameplay. I need both.

Strange that you seem so enamoured with SC then since it offers neither.

And the main point was obviously: if you want to enjoy good sims, the first thing you should be looking at is the simulation since that's what determines whether or not it is a good sim. Graphics is a distraction. It's a crutch that bad games try to sucker you in with so you don't notice that they're bad at what they say they're supposed to provide. Remember how we discussed a while back that you're being mislead and exploited. This is how and why that happens.

 

[Mole HD]

Strange that you seem so enamoured with SC then since it offers neither.

And the main point was obviously: if you want to enjoy good sims, the first thing you should be looking at is the simulation since that's what determines whether or not it is a good sim. Graphics is a distraction. It's a crutch that bad games try to sucker you in with so you don't notice that they're bad at what they say they're supposed to provide. Remember how we discussed a while back that you're being mislead and exploited. This is how and why that happens.

I bought in at a substantially higher level than Little Ant's $45...strange how I don't feel either misled or exploited

 

[Firkrayt]

"put screenshot of the new heightmap"
"awaiting comment on the new heightmap"
"receive only comments on gameplay, procedural bases and non related stuff"

Because one can't alleviate lack of proper gameplay with new heightmaps, even if it had never been done before.

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.

Pfft, amateur. I, for one, evaluate flight sims on how pretty its screenshots look!

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.

Do I get it right that every fourth box glitches?

Polishing, and then repolishing, the visuals first, means that CIG's wasting money.

Actually CI-G is recycling money, it's players who waste them:

Come on now! Since when had CIG done anything efficiently?

Efficiently recycling heaps of players' money since 2011!

 

[Tippis]

I bought in at a substantially higher level than Little Ant's $45...strange how I don't feel either misled or exploited

Do you keep confusing future and present tense?
Do you keep confusing irrealis and realis moods?
Do you value static mocked-up visuals over actual content?

 

[LittleAnt]

Do I get it right that every fourth box glitches?

You do not get it right.
Aurora is a tiny ship. With 4 boxes it's hard to move inside the ship.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

strange how I don't feel either misled or exploited

Can we get confirmation from your cows on this?

 

[Firkrayt]

You do not get it right.
Aurora is a tiny ship. With 4 boxes it's hard to move inside the ship.

Then I don't understand what you said about glitch, please elaborate.

 

[LittleAnt]

Then I don't understand what you said about glitch, please elaborate.

You can put more than 3/4 boxes in the Aurora. If you do, normally you can't join the pilot seat, the boxes block the way. , If you force your way in, you can glitch through the boxes and sit in the cockpit anyway.

 

[sovapid]

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.

lol, no

 

[Firkrayt]

You can put more than 3/4 boxes in the Aurora. If you do, normally you can't join the pilot seat, the boxes block the way. , If you force your way in, you can glitch through the boxes and sit in the cockpit anyway.

Ah, I get it now. it's like this helmet, but now with whole ship:

 

[sovapid]

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.

Dont know if you are having the issue with the green take off spline things not showing up. But if you are, make sure you get in your ship, sit down, and turn the ship on before you ask for take off.

 

[Kaocraft]

"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?

Dunno but the new version does look way better.

 

[sovapid]

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.

And just to expand on this a bit. A Cat is 111m long. An Anaconda is 152m long. So you think the Anaconda is way too maneuverable and and should take 10's of kilometers to change change direction?

A freelancer is 38m long. A type 6 is 48m long. A freelancer flys 100x worse than a loaded cutter.

 

[Firkrayt]

Dunno but the new version does look way better.

I agree, it looks awesome, even puts ship models to shame. Actually I think now is the time for CI-G to redesign all ships models from scratch.
But don't you worry, I'm perfectly aware that there are some retrogrades who will whine that that not what they pledged for. Therefore CI-G should redesign all ships from scratch, but not to replace old ships. No, in fact they should name those new models "Mk II", so citizens can make a conscious choice and buy any Mk II they want.

Idris Mk II, come to daddy!!

 

[Darkfyre99]

Dunno but the new version does look way better.

I agree. That being said, at this stage of development, making it "look way better" shouldn't even be on their to do list. Getting their core tech and gameplay loops up, running, tested by the testing player-base, and then fixed should be at the top of their to do list.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You can put more than 3/4 boxes in the Aurora. If you do, normally you can't join the pilot seat, the boxes block the way. , If you force your way in, you can glitch through the boxes and sit in the cockpit anyway.

Star Citizen: If you glitch through the boxes you can sit in the cockpit.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Dunno but the new version does look way better.

Yeah, but its nothing to make a post about is it?

I mean, if it was ED, wouldn't the general reaction to it be "Meh, ok"?

Not exactly something to write home about.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And just to expand on this a bit. A Cat is 111m long. An Anaconda is 152m long. So you think the Anaconda is way too maneuverable and and should take 10's of kilometers to change change direction?

A freelancer is 38m long. A type 6 is 48m long. A freelancer flys 100x worse than a loaded cutter.

Well, certainly don't want to get the mods in here telling us that there is a whole other part of the forum for discussing ED, but i do wish big ships in ED were a lot less less manouverable. I can get behind this idea in SC as well.

 

[Sanya V. Juutilainen]

An Anaconda is 152m long. So you think the Anaconda is way too maneuverable and and should take 10's of kilometers to change change direction?

If you fly it at full speed, it does fly a lot over, though not tens of kms. To simplify, I took basic data (without boosting, since you usually don't permaboost in trader ship):

Maximum speed 209 m/s.
Acceleration 19 m/s^2.
Meaning 11 seconds to accelerate to maximum.

If you start at 209 m/s, then turn around at 0 and start flying in the opposite direction, before you get to 0, you will fly v0*t + 1/2*a*t^2 = 209 * 11 + 1/2 * (-19) * 11^2 = 1150 m.