LOL, they are now talking about having to shop around for health insurance as well as taxes.
I think they are taking this Second Life thing a tad too far.
I think they are taking this Second Life thing a tad too far.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
Crusader looks good as a gas giant from the distance. From Orison, it looks, mhm, "realistic" - gas giants would not produce anything resembling Star Wars' Cloud City nor anything many fans were waiting for, with puffy, epic cloudscapes and dark, sourceless synthwave playing in the background.
Why the secondary atmosphere though? The planet should not have atmospheric halo, the gas is the atmosphere.
Why the secondary atmosphere though? The planet should not have atmospheric halo, the gas is the atmosphere.
Last edited:
Personally, I have no problem with people having fun playing Star Citizen (or indeed any game). Some people like fishing, which I think unutterably boring. Others like watching football, which I also find dull. Yet my own hobbies are long-distance walking (when family and Covid allows), and I've been up at sparrows-fart each morning so far this year to do a run. Things I find fun, other people don't. Things I don't find fun, other people do. It seems pointless to argue over what is 'fun' - especially in a game.
People having fun is not my issue with Star Citizen. My issues are to do with the blatant cash grab and non-delivery of the game, and with people who seem to be profiting from what I see as a con. If a few people have fun with the bits that have been delivered, cool.
(As an aside, when I lived in London thirty years ago, there were a couple of bait-and-switch con-shops on Oxford Street. They would pretend to be auctions, selling things to tourists quickly. The things were then put into a black bag and handed out, and onto the next lot. Knowing this, I bid a couple of quid for a Walkman, only to find what was handed to me was busted. It did, however have working headphones, which was what I had wanted as mine had bust an hour or so earlier. I did okay out of the con. Not as good as I should have by law, but well enough for my purposes. Or perhaps I have just persuaded myself that I did well, to avoid having to admit to myself I got conned.)
People having fun is not my issue with Star Citizen. My issues are to do with the blatant cash grab and non-delivery of the game, and with people who seem to be profiting from what I see as a con. If a few people have fun with the bits that have been delivered, cool.
(As an aside, when I lived in London thirty years ago, there were a couple of bait-and-switch con-shops on Oxford Street. They would pretend to be auctions, selling things to tourists quickly. The things were then put into a black bag and handed out, and onto the next lot. Knowing this, I bid a couple of quid for a Walkman, only to find what was handed to me was busted. It did, however have working headphones, which was what I had wanted as mine had bust an hour or so earlier. I did okay out of the con. Not as good as I should have by law, but well enough for my purposes. Or perhaps I have just persuaded myself that I did well, to avoid having to admit to myself I got conned.)
So...you're saying you had fun?
If I had a PC that could play it... I might.So...you're saying you had fun?
My comments on Star Citizen are balanced. The project is just that bad. This is my point on OA. Being "on the fence" of an issue isn't always correct. It's wrong for Bitconnect, EEStor, creationism and Star Citizen.
We had people in talk.origins saying exactly the same nonsense. "We should have a balanced opinion!" "Teach both sides!" This is nonsense since evolution is science and creationism isn't. It wasn't our fault the reality was so one-sided.
You mean you're not running it off a PCIev9 SSD, with 512GB of GDDR12 VRAM in an RTX 99999XT graphics card?If I had a PC that could play it... I might.
Ryzen 5600X or 10600K, a GTX 1070 and an SSD is all you need.
Both the consoles have GPU's in them far more powerful than that.
If you can run Odyssey chances are you can run SC.
Nonsense.
Its really not, 50 FPS is what i get on planet surfaces in Odyssey, i don't get any less than that on planet surfaces in SC.
PS: i ran SC on a 1070 for years.
Cries in GTX960
Saw a few of those on holiday as a kid, but out of the back of a van, not shops. We stopped and watched one once. Asked my dad why he wasn't bidding. He said because it was a con.
This conversation is relevant because it deals with Star Citizen.
As has been endlessly shown, Odyssey is not currently acting as a good benchmark, since it is not "better hardware does better". So it can't be used to judge how well hardware will do in another game.
Go watch any comprehensive review of new GPUs (Hardware Unboxed, etc.). There are some games that have different performance characteristics based on GPU brand or other eccentricities. Those particular games often don't serve well as benchmarks. Odyssey is in that space now.
"If your pig can attain orbital insertion velocity"
So i'm right, use whatever rediculous reasoning you like it doesn't change the result.
No, you're the opposite of right. Likewise, Doom Eternal doesn't serve as a good comparison benchmark because it runs too well on a variety of systems.
If you were right, why the heck do comprehensive reviews check the performance of a dozen games or so instead of just one?
No, you're the opposite of right. Likewise, Doom Eternal doesn't serve as a good comparison benchmark because it runs too well on a variety of systems.
If you were right, why the heck do comprehensive reviews check the performance of a dozen games or so instead of just one?
You do realise that not all games are created equal? some have better graphics fidelity that require better hardware, others can run on a potato but look like crap and some are better made than others, they have more talented developers who can make a game with very high levels of fidelity run at the same level of performance as one with lesser fidelity.
Last edited:
Funny thing is, there are games out there that look much better than Star Citizen or Elite Dangerous but somehow don't bring computers to their knees.
There is clearly a matter of optimization issues for both games.
In ED's case it seems to be direct issues with lack of optimization.
In SC's case it seems that CIG (especially CR) focus way too much on fidelity to the point where there is a limit to what optimizations can bring. When they have ridiculously high textures on the soles of boots you have to wonder if they even care about performance or just assume people will buy the computers required to render it all at a good frame rate. It can certainly limit the number of people who can play your game. Back when Wing Commander came out, very few people i knew actually had PCs that could run it, and even then, to get it running at all, CR basically had to make it so that it unloaded the OS from memory once launched to eek out extra bytes. "Thank you for playing Wing Commander" you'd be greeted with on exist, before you rebooted the computer so you could use it again.