Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Surefoot said:
Yeah seeded but good luck finding them exactly as the play area was properly huge. Also the procgen algorithm produced completely crazy dungeons that sometimes were inter connected (multiple exits..) or with impossible layouts (vertical drops that were impossible to climb back). Add to that the usual Bethesda bugs before internet and modder era... that was an "interesting" game to play ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, i remember one where the quest wasn't doable because the layout was borked.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
dmvfgwtmjq591.jpg
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
Surefoot said:
Haha i tried to post on the cultist subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/vcn4kb/_/icfj30q
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/vcn4kb/atmospheric_flight_is_boring_is_the_new_youll_get/icfj30q/?context=3


"YoU DoNt UndErStanD PhySicS !!!"
Couldnt invent this.


Yeah lets throw science out of the window ! It's completely overrated ! Haha. Wont even grace them with a detailed answer that would be completely lost to them (as of course I am an engineer and I understand physics and even aerodynamics.. but why bother)

I think I lost a few IQ points just reading the comments..
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. He was wrong, but the kind of wrong that has just enough correctness that the wrongness isn't obvious. If a ship has powerful enough maneuvering thrusters, there's no reason ship's can't behave like they do in Star Citizen. It's one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of "entry burn effects" involving ships capable of controlled landings. The only time you should see them is if something has gone horribly wrong.

But if you've truly played games like Kerbal Space Program or Empyrion: Galactic Survival, which do a great job at modeling (KSP-realistic engines) or faking (EGS-scifi thrusters) the physics involved, then you'd know how such ships look and handle, and that doesn't describe Star Citizen in any way. Heck, even Space Engineers does a better job at modeling the physics involved than Star Citizen claims to do. You pretty much have to go to No Man's Sky to find a worse flight model than SC's.

Factabulous said:
At least that post explains the massive ship display in the middle of the screen that confused SaltEMike. I can kinda understand building the UI to allow for future features, but all that stuff seems so far away - talking about how cargo placement will affect ship handling when you currently have ships blowing away in the wind ...
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this kind of thing is nearly a decade overdue, as opposed to premature. It's the kind of thing you should be planning in advance, testing models to make sure the physics is correct, baking it into the engine of the game long before your teams of artists start designing assets... or in the case of Star Citizen, long before you start hiring hundreds of artists.
 

Factabulous

Factabulous
Darkfyre99 said:
In my opinion, this kind of thing is nearly a decade overdue, as opposed to premature. It's the kind of thing you should be planning in advance, testing models to make sure the physics is correct, baking it into the engine of the game long before your teams of artists start designing assets... or in the case of Star Citizen, long before you start hiring hundreds of artists.
Click to expand...
Well, as ever ... it depends :)

Best example I can think of is the animation that goes to the hangar in ED - until Odyssey came out and we could actually walk out of the hangar it was pointless, a time waster and could have been removed/never created. Now it makes sense. So it was UI waiting for the backend to appear.

It was a bit surprising to me that they blamed the persistence model for blocking that - you would think the persistence would just have to support 'take cargo from base -> ship in location X' - surely pretty basic and not conceptually different from 'take gun from ship -> backpack'. Wouldn't the actual blocker be quanta - the fake NPCs that load your ship over time? I'd bet they aren't ready and would add extra work to implement. Always more questions :)
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
Factabulous said:
Well, as ever ... it depends :)

Best example I can think of is the animation that goes to the hangar in ED - until Odyssey came out and we could actually walk out of the hangar it was pointless, a time waster and could have been removed/never created. Now it makes sense. So it was UI waiting for the backend to appear.

It was a bit surprising to me that they blamed the persistence model for blocking that - you would think the persistence would just have to support 'take cargo from base -> ship in location X' - surely pretty basic and not conceptually different from 'take gun from ship -> backpack'. Wouldn't the actual blocker be quanta - the fake NPCs that load your ship over time? I'd bet they aren't ready and would add extra work to implement. Always more questions :)
Click to expand...
There is one fine distinction about being in a hangar though - you don't suffocate to death from a broken canopy.
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
Factabulous said:
Well, as ever ... it depends :)

Best example I can think of is the animation that goes to the hangar in ED - until Odyssey came out and we could actually walk out of the hangar it was pointless, a time waster and could have been removed/never created. Now it makes sense. So it was UI waiting for the backend to appear.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'd consider the best example for leaving off important details until the last minute, because I never really considered it worthless, or a time waster, and IMO was really well thought out... unless you're talking about the animation in the hangar, as opposed to the the animation "going into the hangar." At which point, I'd argue that the hangar bays in ED already provide a backdrop for other screens in the game, so why not make them look at least decent. But you can see how they were designed with future functionality in mind.

Either way, the hangar bays in ED are an example of why its so important to get the important stuff working in advance. There's nothing that wastes more time than designing something, and discovering you'll have to redesign it because you hadn't thought that far ahead.

Factabulous said:
It was a bit surprising to me that they blamed the persistence model for blocking that - you would think the persistence would just have to support 'take cargo from base -> ship in location X' - surely pretty basic and not conceptually different from 'take gun from ship -> backpack'. Wouldn't the actual blocker be quanta - the fake NPCs that load your ship over time? I'd bet they aren't ready and would add extra work to implement. Always more questions :)
Click to expand...

It's only surprising because you would've thought that CIG would've done the design work in advance. With FD, for years my attitude has been, "I am seldom surprised, but I'm frequently disappointed." With CIG, I'm constantly caught flat footed about how little work CIG has done on the basics, leaving me both surprised and constantly disappointed.
 

Agony_Aunt

Agony_Aunt
Darkfyre99 said:
In my opinion, this kind of thing is nearly a decade overdue, as opposed to premature. It's the kind of thing you should be planning in advance, testing models to make sure the physics is correct, baking it into the engine of the game long before your teams of artists start designing assets... or in the case of Star Citizen, long before you start hiring hundreds of artists.
Click to expand...

You clearly have never heard of asset driven development. Invented by Chris Roberts himself! What you do is sell assets, then create them, then design the game around them afterwards! Only FUDsters fail to see the true genius of this development methodology that has yet to catch on in the wider development world (except in the mobile market, where it is rife!)
 

Surefoot

S
Darkfyre99 said:
I know what you mean. He was wrong, but the kind of wrong that has just enough correctness that the wrongness isn't obvious. If a ship has powerful enough maneuvering thrusters, there's no reason ship's can't behave like they do in Star Citizen. It's one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of "entry burn effects" involving ships capable of controlled landings. The only time you should see them is if something has gone horribly wrong.
Click to expand...
Who are you to make reasonable and informed arguments, you FUDster !
Heh.
You definitely have entry burns if you go fast enough (thinking of KSP) that makes sense, but speed in SC being limited to about mach 3 (max "cruise" speed) even at that speed you'd see nothing special unless the atmo is a very, very thick soup (and even so, the effect would be very faint). Also proper entry burns are quite destructive on non-protected parts of the ship as things are indeed being cooked by plasma...
Do we need that in SC ? definitely not. Although I would mind a bit more piloting challenge there and have ricochets for instance if your approach is too shallow.. (which KSP does perfectly)

Darkfyre99 said:
You pretty much have to go to No Man's Sky to find a worse flight model than SC's.
Click to expand...
Yeah that was my point. SC focus in "FPS combat and on foot action" first, ships second. Which is disappointing to say the least, given the amount of ships they sell at inflated prices.
Oh also KSP has a mod called FAR (Ferram Aerospace Research) made by an actual aerodynamics engineer who's implemented all proper transonic, and supersonic effects to KSP models using a "simplified mesh" model (since ships in KSP are built entirely).. Does a really fantastic job and designs that work with this mod are strangely similar to real life designs ;) Even when using mods with completely overpowered engines, you cannot overcome the laws of physics and a ship flying at mach 3+ better have a lot of aero trickery just to avoid flipping around and going for a "rapid unexpected disassembly".
But yeah here cultists will tell me that the Arrow in SC, a small fighter that's basically a lifting body with a delta dihedral wing, is justified to fly backwards or with the wings facing the wind flow without any issue (while in KSP+FAR this design is highly unstable of course, the center of lift is all the way to the rear...). Makes me cringe everytime i see one doing atmo nonsense flying in random directions like a small quadcopter drone basically.

Darkfyre99 said:
In my opinion, this kind of thing is nearly a decade overdue, as opposed to premature. It's the kind of thing you should be planning in advance, testing models to make sure the physics is correct, baking it into the engine of the game long before your teams of artists start designing assets... or in the case of Star Citizen, long before you start hiring hundreds of artists.
Click to expand...
I think that's 100% part of the completely broken physics engine that Emperor God CRoberts himself touched with his holy code. And given the company culture at CiG, I can see why no one dares to touch it.
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
Factabulous said:
It was a bit surprising to me that they blamed the persistence model for blocking that - you would think the persistence would just have to support 'take cargo from base -> ship in location X' - surely pretty basic and not conceptually different from 'take gun from ship -> backpack'. Wouldn't the actual blocker be quanta - the fake NPCs that load your ship over time? I'd bet they aren't ready and would add extra work to implement. Always more questions :)
Click to expand...

Yeah it is an odd one. My best guess is it's to do with this stuff: "cargo that impacts other cargo (don’t put radioactive things next to plants and such)".

Possibly it relates to item sorting issues in the entity graph system? (Going by the current inventory they seem to be struggling a bit with classifying items within a grouping. Possibly needed rejigging there, which would have impacted all other systems handling entities etc)

Who knows ¯\(ツ)/¯

Just shows that settling on their networking / persistence architecture in the first five years or so might have been a bit less mad ;)
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Darkfyre99 said:
I know what you mean. He was wrong, but the kind of wrong that has just enough correctness that the wrongness isn't obvious. If a ship has powerful enough maneuvering thrusters, there's no reason ship's can't behave like they do in Star Citizen. It's one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of "entry burn effects" involving ships capable of controlled landings. The only time you should see them is if something has gone horribly wrong.

But if you've truly played games like Kerbal Space Program or Empyrion: Galactic Survival, which do a great job at modeling (KSP-realistic engines) or faking (EGS-scifi thrusters) the physics involved, then you'd know how such ships look and handle, and that doesn't describe Star Citizen in any way. Heck, even Space Engineers does a better job at modeling the physics involved than Star Citizen claims to do. You pretty much have to go to No Man's Sky to find a worse flight model than SC's.



In my opinion, this kind of thing is nearly a decade overdue, as opposed to premature. It's the kind of thing you should be planning in advance, testing models to make sure the physics is correct, baking it into the engine of the game long before your teams of artists start designing assets... or in the case of Star Citizen, long before you start hiring hundreds of artists.
Click to expand...
But KSP has entry burn effects. Still working on the controlled landings but it's a waste of fuel, imo.
 

Factabulous

Factabulous
VR Golgot said:
Possibly it relates to item sorting issues in the entity graph system? (Going by the current inventory they seem to be struggling a bit with classifying items within a grouping. Possibly needed rejigging there, which would have impacted all other systems handling entities etc)
Click to expand...
Possibly - but maybe if you're adding a new persistence model and doing simple things like 'putting cargo in a ship' causes sharp intakes of breath then maybe you want to look at that persistence model - because it's all going to be about putting things in other things - how else will the coffee cup get into that forest? :)
 

Navigare Necesse Est

Navigare Necesse Est
Surefoot said:
Who are you to make reasonable and informed arguments, you FUDster !
Heh.
You definitely have entry burns if you go fast enough (thinking of KSP) that makes sense, but speed in SC being limited to about mach 3 (max "cruise" speed) even at that speed you'd see nothing special unless the atmo is a very, very thick soup (and even so, the effect would be very faint). Also proper entry burns are quite destructive on non-protected parts of the ship as things are indeed being cooked by plasma...
Do we need that in SC ? definitely not. Although I would mind a bit more piloting challenge there and have ricochets for instance if your approach is too shallow.. (which KSP does perfectly)


Yeah that was my point. SC focus in "FPS combat and on foot action" first, ships second. Which is disappointing to say the least, given the amount of ships they sell at inflated prices.
Oh also KSP has a mod called FAR (Ferram Aerospace Research) made by an actual aerodynamics engineer who's implemented all proper transonic, and supersonic effects to KSP models using a "simplified mesh" model (since ships in KSP are built entirely).. Does a really fantastic job and designs that work with this mod are strangely similar to real life designs ;) Even when using mods with completely overpowered engines, you cannot overcome the laws of physics and a ship flying at mach 3+ better have a lot of aero trickery just to avoid flipping around and going for a "rapid unexpected disassembly".
But yeah here cultists will tell me that the Arrow in SC, a small fighter that's basically a lifting body with a delta dihedral wing, is justified to fly backwards or with the wings facing the wind flow without any issue (while in KSP+FAR this design is highly unstable of course, the center of lift is all the way to the rear...). Makes me cringe everytime i see one doing atmo nonsense flying in random directions like a small quadcopter drone basically.


I think that's 100% part of the completely broken physics engine that Emperor God CRoberts himself touched with his holy code. And given the company culture at CiG, I can see why no one dares to touch it.
Click to expand...
Any game that doesn't model retrograde burns properly does it wrong. ED reverskis were a big letdown.
 

Kaocraft

Kaocraft
varonica said:
Yeah I watched the video on the making of caves for SC, I know those are handcrafted, but ED would of necessity have to have proc-gen caves because there are to many systems and planets to have a small selection of caves hand crafted onto.
Click to expand...
No ED would not have to proc-gen caves. They already don't proc-gen surface settlements, or thargoid sites, or cities, or space stations, or Guardian sites, or plants, or space molluscs, or any of the things that you'd think they would "have" to proc-gen. They just copy-paste a few handmade variations across the entire galaxy. So yeah 15-20 different cave layouts would be fine. And if FDEV ever did add caves they'd probably start with 4 at launch and say that was "fine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom