So medium fudge level then?
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
So medium fudge level then?
Based on the initial KS funding goal it would have had to be a stock engine and level based - 64 bit positioning would have been a no. In that scenario Cry Engine made perfect sense. For me at that point the project was doable and it would be scoped with in the limits of what Cry Engine could do out of the box. Then came the money and the stretch goals introducing huge technical debt and forcing engine changes. Alongside that came a look at the competition as they appreciated what ED was promising and 64 bit positioning became necessary.
3.14 isn't too bad...we've certainly had a lot worse. It's still in PTU though
Last edited:
In the original pitch video he flat out states that he relies more on graphical detail for the purposes of immersion and a game where every action influences the universe (and also a continuous stream of new content, because he doesn't like games that only do yearly updates).
So, yeah, here we are.
We're not talking about reality here. We're talking about CIG's marketing pitch and what they sold the backers on in 2012.
Can anyone show me where in the initial pitch CIG talked about limited lobbies and CryEngine sized maps.
Does any of this give the impression that the BDSSE was going to be like that?
Can anyone honestly say that funding would have been as good if that is what CIG were pitching?
As usual, CR was short on the details and went in heavy on the "immersion" and graphical details. A Freelancer type multiplayer game in a large universe kinda needs.. a large universe.
Of course they're not going to mention how much work it entails to make the small scale graphical quality heavy engine they chose for "immersion" handle a large universe. Cause that's not how you gain investors.
Of course they're not going to mention how much work it entails to make the small scale graphical quality heavy engine they chose for "immersion" handle a large universe. Cause that's not how you gain investors.
Are we going through yet another phase of re-guessing Star Citizen history again like we do every couple of weeks?
Think I'll just sit this one out...
Last edited:
Source
The initial "Galaxy Server" was only intended to manage the lobby, the creation of classic instances and the dispatch of players inside those instances.
If you read the full article, you have some details like "You will also be able to see the full list of players in the room if there are more players than there are slots. Default would be a drop down list for this". The article is full of technical limitations that permit to make the whole system doable with simple Cry Engine instances.
They have a new planet (after removing one from the only system in the game... ahem) for you to visit and post screenshots from in order to farm karma from the cultists.
Otherwise nothing new, still waiting for any complete significant game loop (and even pretend-loops like trading are not working anymore due to terminals malfunction combined with vastly reduced stock amounts...). Data running, reclaiming, scanning, exploration etc. nothing is there anywhere in sight. Even this big ship docking thing has fallen off the radar (are they keeping it in store for Hull series ?). Second system nowhere in sight, and the 98 other promised systems arent either. The promised "quanta" trading thing is not there either, or the 100 to 1 npc to player ratio, or functional NPCs at all. The volumetric clouds look good. (edit) oh and if you like Crusader ships, that's the year, they've now released the Hercules and it looks really good, although like most ships in SC it's full of things that are there just for looks and have zero function. They even have a nice looking VTOL mode that's also for pretends.
Last edited:
That goes without saying. The quick and dirty machinima that was set up in 2011 (by Crytek) for his presentation also played a large part in the scam artist show that was his kickstarter. Let people think he was going to do the "BDSSE" (as promised back then) - of course if you are talking "space sim" you are talking huge distances, even at reduced scales, there's no going around it.
I've just read the article, and (as usual) he's all over the place with his statements.
One minute he's talking about wanting to avoid griefing and ganking and saying discrete instances makes sense and then next he's talking about not liking how sharding separates players..
Look at this part:
And yet, that's exactly what you are saying CIG planned to do.
Ok, Chris talking sense here. Which is interesting, because for the last half dozen years they have been talking about actually doing this. You know, all that mega battle rhetoric where you have servers dedicated to single ships and stuff. There is a quote from Erin about this from a few years ago.
Now i'm getting onto the part you quoted, which indeed, strongly supports your statement! Point to LA!
But then we read further
Note, there is nothing here about switching maps. Its described like a smooth launch into space. Basically it sounds very much like ED, but instead of dynamic instance bubbles around players, they sound more static around regions of space. But ok, there's more than one way to fleece a backer.
Now moving forward this can be interpreted either way.
How far away are these jump points?
And it goes on, but it all sounds exactly like what exists in the PU today, with its 64 bit position environment.
However, it also sounds a bit like loading screens (Which would again support your point LA). But that's strange, because we've heard from backers (and i'm sure CIG) since the beginning there would be no loading screens between areas, even when planetary landings were meant to be restricted to certain areas. I've lost count of how many times over the years backers have (incorrectly) talked about ED having loading screens while SC doesn't/won't, and that even the jump between systems wasn't going to be a loading screen (which of course it will be).
So, its a bit confusing.
Summary
First of all, kudos to you LA for actually providing a source that supports your point. Full credit for that, instead of just waffling on and deflecting.
Secondly, it very much depends on how you read it. What CR describes back then is pretty much what we have now in the PU. The only question is, are those times spent traveling actually loading screens or are you actually moving through space? Which was he actually talking about doing?
While it could mean traveling without moving (shades of Dune!) that flies in the face of what backers thought they were getting for years and does not sound like the BDSSE at all.
The instancing thing sound very much like what ED does and what CIG plan to do with dynamic server meshing.
So, i'd say its rather inconclusive. It could be read either way.
However, if you are right, this is fantastic ammunition to use against the faithful who make certain claims about how some things were always the plan!
Here's one in particular.
My, how things have changed! Now the mantra is git gud or fly with org mates, otherwise you might get ganked! Guess CR no longer cares about people being able to tailor their experience.
I don't think sovapid would have liked this version of the game. People being able to hide in solo or coop instances! Sounds a bit like Elite!
Another great quote from the article
Of course it fell short you doofus, you spent all the money and went massively past the deadline, and MS had to bail you out and then spent 2 years getting it into a state where it could be shipped.
What a plonker.
Anyway, so, was it loading screens or was it actual travel?
I think we'd need further statements to confirm this one way or the other.
Are we going through yet another phase of re-guessing Star Citizen history again like we do every couple of weeks?
Think I'll just sit this one out...
Absoloutely! But you're probably one of the saner people around here. Most of us are just nuts.
In 2014? Definitely not the Frankengine. However, here you can read an interesting thread from /r/sc about how Space Engineers did that:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/2qium0/1000000000_km_diameter_map_with_doubleprecision/
Since the link in the thread does not work anymore, here is the mangled version (from 2014 out of all years
):Marek Rosa - dev blog
"Need to create" - Builder, accelerationist, and Founder/CEO at KeenSWH.com and GoodAI.com - Working on AI People and LTM, Space Engineers 2, VRAGE3 engine and Resilient Civilization
64-bit coordinates are not rocket science. Arbitrary precision coordinates aren't in general - they simply are not necessary for most games. E
has their own version of dealing with it, however I could not find reliable sources for details.Is fantastic ammunition but, and you already pointed out, it will trigger answers like “that’s your interpretation” or “That’s not what he (CR) meant”… or my favorite one: “that’s an old design that doesn’t fit with the current vision of the game”… especially if you dare to talk about PvP/PvEI've just read the article, and (as usual) he's all over the place with his statements.
One minute he's talking about wanting to avoid griefing and ganking and saying discrete instances makes sense and then next he's talking about not liking how sharding separates players..
Look at this part:
And yet, that's exactly what you are saying CIG planned to do.
Ok, Chris talking sense here. Which is interesting, because for the last half dozen years they have been talking about actually doing this. You know, all that mega battle rhetoric where you have servers dedicated to single ships and stuff. There is a quote from Erin about this from a few years ago.
Now i'm getting onto the part you quoted, which indeed, strongly supports your statement! Point to LA!
But then we read further
Note, there is nothing here about switching maps. Its described like a smooth launch into space. Basically it sounds very much like ED, but instead of dynamic instance bubbles around players, they sound more static around regions of space. But ok, there's more than one way to fleece a backer.
Now moving forward this can be interpreted either way.
How far away are these jump points?
And it goes on, but it all sounds exactly like what exists in the PU today, with its 64 bit position environment.
However, it also sounds a bit like loading screens (Which would again support your point LA). But that's strange, because we've heard from backers (and i'm sure CIG) since the beginning there would be no loading screens between areas, even when planetary landings were meant to be restricted to certain areas. I've lost count of how many times over the years backers have (incorrectly) talked about ED having loading screens while SC doesn't/won't, and that even the jump between systems wasn't going to be a loading screen (which of course it will be).
So, its a bit confusing.
Summary
First of all, kudos to you LA for actually providing a source that supports your point. Full credit for that, instead of just waffling on and deflecting.
Secondly, it very much depends on how you read it. What CR describes back then is pretty much what we have now in the PU. The only question is, are those times spent traveling actually loading screens or are you actually moving through space? Which was he actually talking about doing?
While it could mean traveling without moving (shades of Dune!) that flies in the face of what backers thought they were getting for years and does not sound like the BDSSE at all.
The instancing thing sound very much like what ED does and what CIG plan to do with dynamic server meshing.
So, i'd say its rather inconclusive. It could be read either way.
However, if you are right, this is fantastic ammunition to use against the faithful who make certain claims about how some things were always the plan!
Here's one in particular.
My, how things have changed! Now the mantra is git gud or fly with org mates, otherwise you might get ganked! Guess CR no longer cares about people being able to tailor their experience.
I don't think sovapid would have liked this version of the game. People being able to hide in solo or coop instances! Sounds a bit like Elite!
Another great quote from the article
Of course it fell short you doofus, you spent all the money and went massively past the deadline, and MS had to bail you out and then spent 2 years getting it into a state where it could be shipped.
What a plonker.
Anyway, so, was it loading screens or was it actual travel?
I think we'd need further statements to confirm this one way or the other.
Space Engineers engine was not buyable in 2014 and is not suitable for a game with fps gameplay.
In 2014, there was no engine suitable for the SC project with 64bits positioning and CIG had to add it in whatever engine they could choose at the time (the 2 main ones : cryengine or unreal engine).
Its not 2012 anymore
IndianaJonesGrailKnight.gif
Has been said before, with all the time CIG has spent making changes to a licensed engine, they could have started from scratch and be in a much better position.
The decision to license was supposedly to save time. Yet here we are 10 years on. All this harp about 64bit positioning, a term not uttered until CIG made a big deal about it, is pointless and so 2014.
The decision to license was supposedly to save time. Yet here we are 10 years on. All this harp about 64bit positioning, a term not uttered until CIG made a big deal about it, is pointless and so 2014.
Basically what I said. Re-running the 'great debate' every couple of pages may be fun an' all...but we can't change it any more than some folk can change their opinions. This endless debate on where SC was back in 2012/2014/2016...it's all been and gone...and we've all read it before...thousands and thousands and thousands (getting the picture?) of times.Tell us more Trepid
It doesn't seem to matter when any of us who do play post newer or more relevant stuff, it always comes back to dredging up the old idiot Roberts' memes from 2012-2016 and searching the internet for articles that went out of fashion with wide collar shirts...
Since I joined this threadnaught back in V2...whenever it was..I've backed the game, refunded and backed again yet the conversations still remain exactly the same as back then in V2. It's brain scrambling...
I'm beginning to feel a sense of deja-vu.... like I do every year my wife reminds me that I scoffed an entire box of Maltesers she had been saving in the fridge... 31 years ago.
I post..."There's new stuff guys, some of it is OK, most is crap." ... immediately followed by 30 posts of "But Chris Roberts said in 2012." or "Ci¬G did/didn't do this in 2015..."
I'll go back to sleep watching Netflix with my cuppa now
Last edited: