Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Right, this is the story where the Tortoise keeps going back to the start line and changing it's shell?
Except - in the mind of Genuine Robert's - you call them Xi'an and still don't have them in the game yet
Sounds like yet another SC ship that "punches above its weight"
They've clearly decided to sacrifice any possibility of balancing any of this stuff because as long as their one and only priority is selling more jpegs, each new ship needs to be better than what came before.
Do you know CIG started to work on a MOAB type bomb ?
Why does it not surprise me?
But we already had bombers anyway, so all that supposed balance testing the Call of Duty mod, erm, i mean Theaters of War was meant to help with goes out of the window the moment someone flies over people running around on the ground and drops bombs from a great height.
CIG have invented handcrafted placement of rivers! Rejoice!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cAbEqAwWEQ
So... rather than proc gen, they are doing handcrafted. Woo hoo! Answer the call. 2050.
So... rather than proc gen, they are doing handcrafted. Woo hoo! Answer the call. 2050.
What we need is a Gogglebox-like series where Devs from one game are shown watching streams where another Dev explains their tech. I would pay good money* to see fdev's Dr Kay's reaction to watching that stream!
* well, unless the reaction was mostly nodding and saying "yes, yes" - but I kinda doubt it
How do you know they can't proc gen them ?
Doesn't showing it doesn't mean the planet tech will/can't do it. At the start of the video they show also hand placement of rocks, those rocks are also in the proc gen...
With CIG its always safest to assume if you haven't seen something it doesn't exist. I apply the same mindset to all games in development, but with CIG its definitely the safest route.
Also, keep in mind, Chris Roberts. Even if they proc gen it, he's likely to come along and say how he doesn't like how a river bends in a particular place and its the wrong shade of blue, so they will have to go in and manually edit it anyway.
@LittleAnt If no one else says it bluntly, then I will.
I'm glad you enjoy the game. I'm glad for all of $45 or whatever small amount you put in has given you hundreds of hours of fun. I'm glad it's so fun for you that you look forward to the future content roll-outs. I mean, that's what the hobby's all about. You have found fun, and I will never ever deny that you have, nor say you play the game wrong in that pursuit of fun.
However, if there's only one thing I'm allowed to drill into your head it's this:
The past and current behavior of Roberts is actively endangering your ability to have fun with this game in the future, and is putting unbelievable, previously unheard-of pressure on faithful backers to keep the dream financially alive.
If you are perfectly fine with Star Citizen one day sooner rather than later shutting down, forever unavailable thereafter, because you feel you got your money's worth, then that is perfectly fine. If, however, you would like to ensure Star Citizen's continued health because you want it to remain and grow, you need to hold Roberts accountable for everything he has said and promised about the development and management of the game. And sometimes that means acknowledging that Roberts has told some big fibs, if not outright lies, to keep the faithful spending money.
That, I think, is the biggest chasm between yourself and the other folks here. It's not that you enjoy the game, it's that you excuse CIG's abnormal and frankly predatory behavior as inconsequential at best and something folks should celebrate at worst.
I'm glad you enjoy the game. I'm glad for all of $45 or whatever small amount you put in has given you hundreds of hours of fun. I'm glad it's so fun for you that you look forward to the future content roll-outs. I mean, that's what the hobby's all about. You have found fun, and I will never ever deny that you have, nor say you play the game wrong in that pursuit of fun.
However, if there's only one thing I'm allowed to drill into your head it's this:
The past and current behavior of Roberts is actively endangering your ability to have fun with this game in the future, and is putting unbelievable, previously unheard-of pressure on faithful backers to keep the dream financially alive.
If you are perfectly fine with Star Citizen one day sooner rather than later shutting down, forever unavailable thereafter, because you feel you got your money's worth, then that is perfectly fine. If, however, you would like to ensure Star Citizen's continued health because you want it to remain and grow, you need to hold Roberts accountable for everything he has said and promised about the development and management of the game. And sometimes that means acknowledging that Roberts has told some big fibs, if not outright lies, to keep the faithful spending money.
That, I think, is the biggest chasm between yourself and the other folks here. It's not that you enjoy the game, it's that you excuse CIG's abnormal and frankly predatory behavior as inconsequential at best and something folks should celebrate at worst.
Proc gen or not for rivers is a real deal for games like ED or NMS with billion of planets.
For SC where the number of planets planned with rivers is certainly less than 100 and already with hand placed elements, it's not really important.
Craith
Volunteer Moderator
Because the technology shown does not work for proc-generated rivers. Procedurally placing rocks or trees is (relatively) simple, your code defines an area where the rocks/trees are placed, done. No need to take anything else in account except the current gradient at the location of the rock/tree/other asset and any collisions that could occur. Roads are slightly more involved, since they need to check the gradient of the road between waypoints to make sense, but all in all not to complicated (relatively speaking, of course).
Rivers on the other hand have always follow the steepest gradiant, while at the same time making sure it reaches a major body of water. This can only be done with a high amount of calculations - not something you want to do at runtime. And you need to calculate the whole river, you can't just take the part you currently see, because source and estuary have to be defined for the river to make sense. Neither can you use a LOD of the planet to calculate it, because the location of watersheds is immensely important and small changes can completely change the flow of a river.
Of course, you could argue that you could pre-calculate the whole planet, safe it and load it from the hard drive or stream it from a database - MSFS 20 might give you a hint what storage capacity would be needed for one planet: over 2 petabytes - (ok, SC planets are just tiny rocks compared to a real planet, but still, even reducing it by a magnitude won't make it feasible for even one solar system to precalculate - there is a reason why SC switched their stance from "everything is handcrafted, PC is bad" to "PC planets with some handcrafting involved". Not understanding how big a planet is in the beginning is another reason.)
Is it impossible to proc-generate rivers at runtime? I guess no, I read some papers on possible solutions (one interesting read is https://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~jgain/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/peytavie2019.pdf for example). But to answer your question - I am sure they can't do it with their current engine, and I am quite sure the engine will never be able to do it. I expect them to pre-calculate them, and never get the promised 100 planets.
Without looking, will this C2 Hercules thing deploy properly functioning persistent engine code able to co-exist in a massively multiplayer environment, or is it still just more lipstick on a pig?After reading the last weeks on forums what backers think about the upcoming C2 Hercules, I try a little prediction : huge boost incoming in the funding, even bigger than the MSR one
That's not a surprise though. Star Citizen is built on CryEngine 3.6.4 (but under the Lumberyard licence). CIG said this in the court filings against Crytek.
But they have the CE license again now, no? Didn't they settle?
Yep, but Star Citizen still has the Lumberyard watermark/branding on its splash screen so (for now) is still using the Lumberyard licence.
This doesn't change the fact that the game is, and has always been, built on CryEngine 3.6.4 so finding proof that Star Citizen is built on CryEngine is redundant as a "gotcha" moment.
Last edited:
Question - if someone melts a ship and uses the proceeds to by something with the credit, does that count as a new sale on the funding income?
Oh my I totally forgot this scene, and it soooo much nails it!