Page 2058 of 2912 FirstFirst ... 20482054205520562057205820592060206120622068 ... LastLast
Results 30,856 to 30,870 of 43673

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: The Star Citizen Thread v5

  1. #30856
    Originally Posted by ianw View Post (Source)
    Yes - I was in it - the guy that set it up got fed up and was trying to abandon it - not sure if he did in the end or not. Someone else asked a while back and found it - I can't remember what it was called but Elite was part of the name I think.
    Wow, theres a "few" organizations there with "Elite" in their name.
    But i think i found the correct one as theres Elite emblem as their avatar.

    Just thought that id ask if there is one, im already in two organizations, but i might join that Elite players org also at some point.

  2. #30857
    Originally Posted by dsmart View Post (Source)
    So I decided to take time out of my vacation to write up a new blog, Irreconcilable Differences, which discusses, among other things, the Lumberyard engine switch.

    Anyone who somehow thinks that this switch is a good thing, clearly either isn't paying attention, or they haven't been in videogaming long. Or they work and/or shill for CIG/RSI.

    ps: I have chosen to not engage in the on-going circular discussions because they're all hopelessly repetitive, and pointless.
    I know zero about game development, I'm an old gamer, who do project management in the 25 - 50 million USD range globally, and from where I stand the SC project is cursed with a top management who don't know the basics, "how to manage and build a company". They prove that so many times i stopped counting.

    Hegh Daq maj jaghpu

  3. #30858
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Well, could you give us your POV what is wrong in Derek's article? Just for factual sake.
    I'm not sure if this thread will withstand the discussion (slapfight) of this magnitude.

  4. #30859
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Well, could you give us your POV what is wrong in Derek's article? Just for factual sake.
    Well, regarding the 64-bit thing, look elsewhere in this thread for a lot of mincing around on definitions. Spoiler: "64-Bit custom engine" doesn't have any particular meaning, 64-bit positioning sort of has a meaning, but could be twisted, 64-bit floating point (aka double precision) positioning has a pretty clear meaning and is actually what is. He's still adamant that the positioning is a 32-bit with floating origin, I don't know why, it's a totally reasonable (worked well enough for Elite) way to do things, so CIG would have just said they did that, but because they didn't do that, they said they did the thing they actually did. "It has emerged" apparently. From where I dare not ask.
    He creates a false dichotomy between MMOs that instance their areas, and ones that have a single world and you have to create a new character or pay to move between. He literally undermines it with an example of LoD allowing people to move from server to server. Another obvious counterexample is WoW, which has explicit servers you can't move between, but still instances certain areas. I don't know much about the network plans for SC, but he misrepresents the obstacles it would have to overcome to make it look impossible.
    Next section: Apparently an engine switch would be ridiculous but for some reason Unreal 4 would be a good move it it weren't so much work to do the port? No explanation given why UE4 would be a great engine for MMOs. Ignore and move on.
    He then links to a forum post where someone called Loiosh describes a very sensible way to cut down network stalls, and he shoots it down because "it would break the server loading of assets that require textures". Just unpack that for a moment. Firstly, the idea that you couldn't un-break that by making changes to the server. Secondly, why would the server be loading textures to begin with? Gods' sakes, man, where is it going to draw them? Unless what he's saying here is that the server, receiving a message that says "load this whole ship", would no longer be able to work out not to load textures, which is equally hopeless.
    Ok, then we reference CryEngine 4. Which doesn't exist.
    He then compares Lumberyard changelog sizes with CryEngine 3 patch notes length, I think to imply that Lumberyard is a much greater set of changes, moments before quoting me, complaining that CE3 patch notes tend not to include all the changes they made. Bravo.
    Then we get to some shade-throwing about whether it's actually 50% edited, and wait.. "I can safely say that it’s completely inconceivable that both of these dev teams have made exactly the same revisions (tweaks, fixes, improvements etc) to CE3.x, and to the extent that both engines are comparable to each other." Finally something I can 100% agree with. Besides straightforward typo-type bugs, the changes are almost certainly going to be different. Hell, I'd say that over 95% of devs on this planet would agree with him on that one.
    We get back to form quickly though:
    "Given the facts of both engines, and the nature of game development in general, there isn’t a single game dev on this planet, who will look at those statements and find anything factual in them."
    As usual, Derek presumes to speak for the entire planetary games industry. I'm putting my hand up, here, I'm on this planet, and I think the claim that it took two days is factual. Even if they hand-integrated some key updates, because if you've got the version-control history and you know what you're doing, it just ain't that hard. The best I can make out, he's simultaneously arguing that an engine switch is a massively complex fool's errand, and also that it's a tiny and meaningless change. That it's a failure of open development that all this work wasn't shared with backers, and also that 2.6 doesn't have enough Lumberyard runtime components in it for much work to have been done.
    "By all accounts, either they are currently working on the full switch to Lumberyard – which, given the massive undertaking – is going to take the better part of 2017 if you ask me – or this was a publicity stunt in order to use Amazon". False dichotomy, see the buffet analogy.
    The next part is the part I like best though. He gives a whole list of features that Lumberyard might provide, including DX12, Vulkan (it's spelled with a K, Derek), and console support. He then says none of those would be possible without throwing out a significant percentage of the work done in the last few years. Here I was like, OK, you're downplaying the benefits of the switch, solid argument. BUT NO! No, the "fact" that it would require a massive deletion of all the stuff that's been done, INCREASES the chance that it's all in aid of a console port: "All of a sudden, those rumors of an inevitable console port aren’t looking so far-fetched now after all, are they?" Seriously. This is S-Grade trolling, I never saw it coming, I gotta tip my fancy hat to him for that one.

    Edit: I totally get that there are reasons for people, and people in this thread, to dislike CIG or Star Citizen. Most are touchy territory that I don't touch. But fictitious technical problems shouldn't be among them.
    You know what they say about mud-wrestling a pig...

  5. #30860
    Originally Posted by Henkka77 View Post (Source)
    Does Elite players have a group or organization in SC?
    Absolutely - I've been in a SC org since june 2013. Also got my friend to join it in late 2014.

    We haven't touched SC in a year now, and judging from our org's activity, neither has the vast majority of org mates.
    But we are still in that org, hoping for better days.

  6. #30861
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Well, could you give us your POV what is wrong in Derek's article? Just for factual sake.
    I'm guessing he doesn't mean the bits where Derek has quoted comments from Ben (Parry), Chris, Erin, and David Swofford.

    But it would be handy to have some specifics other than the equivalent of you're totally wrong so Ner!

    ETA - irrelevant as Ben has now expanded as above and copied below..

    Originally Posted by Ben Parry View Post (Source)
    Well, regarding the 64-bit thing, look elsewhere in this thread for a lot of mincing around on definitions. Spoiler: "64-Bit custom engine" doesn't have any particular meaning, 64-bit positioning sort of has a meaning, but could be twisted, 64-bit floating point (aka double precision) positioning has a pretty clear meaning and is actually what is. He's still adamant that the positioning is a 32-bit with floating origin, I don't know why, it's a totally reasonable (worked well enough for Elite) way to do things, so CIG would have just said they did that, but because they didn't do that, they said they did the thing they actually did. "It has emerged" apparently. From where I dare not ask.
    He creates a false dichotomy between MMOs that instance their areas, and ones that have a single world and you have to create a new character or pay to move between. He literally undermines it with an example of LoD allowing people to move from server to server. Another obvious counterexample is WoW, which has explicit servers you can't move between, but still instances certain areas. I don't know much about the network plans for SC, but he misrepresents the obstacles it would have to overcome to make it look impossible.
    Next section: Apparently an engine switch would be ridiculous but for some reason Unreal 4 would be a good move it it weren't so much work to do the port? No explanation given why UE4 would be a great engine for MMOs. Ignore and move on.
    He then links to a forum post where someone called Loiosh describes a very sensible way to cut down network stalls, and he shoots it down because "it would break the server loading of assets that require textures". Just unpack that for a moment. Firstly, the idea that you couldn't un-break that by making changes to the server. Secondly, why would the server be loading textures to begin with? Gods' sakes, man, where is it going to draw them? Unless what he's saying here is that the server, receiving a message that says "load this whole ship", would no longer be able to work out not to load textures, which is equally hopeless.
    Ok, then we reference CryEngine 4. Which doesn't exist.
    He then compares Lumberyard changelog sizes with CryEngine 3 patch notes length, I think to imply that Lumberyard is a much greater set of changes, moments before quoting me, complaining that CE3 patch notes tend not to include all the changes they made. Bravo.
    Then we get to some shade-throwing about whether it's actually 50% edited, and wait.. "I can safely say that it’s completely inconceivable that both of these dev teams have made exactly the same revisions (tweaks, fixes, improvements etc) to CE3.x, and to the extent that both engines are comparable to each other." Finally something I can 100% agree with. Besides straightforward typo-type bugs, the changes are almost certainly going to be different. Hell, I'd say that over 95% of devs on this planet would agree with him on that one.
    We get back to form quickly though:
    "Given the facts of both engines, and the nature of game development in general, there isn’t a single game dev on this planet, who will look at those statements and find anything factual in them."
    As usual, Derek presumes to speak for the entire planetary games industry. I'm putting my hand up, here, I'm on this planet, and I think the claim that it took two days is factual. Even if they hand-integrated some key updates, because if you've got the version-control history and you know what you're doing, it just ain't that hard. The best I can make out, he's simultaneously arguing that an engine switch is a massively complex fool's errand, and also that it's a tiny and meaningless change. That it's a failure of open development that all this work wasn't shared with backers, and also that 2.6 doesn't have enough Lumberyard runtime components in it for much work to have been done.
    "By all accounts, either they are currently working on the full switch to Lumberyard – which, given the massive undertaking – is going to take the better part of 2017 if you ask me – or this was a publicity stunt in order to use Amazon". False dichotomy, see the buffet analogy.
    The next part is the part I like best though. He gives a whole list of features that Lumberyard might provide, including DX12, Vulkan (it's spelled with a K, Derek), and console support. He then says none of those would be possible without throwing out a significant percentage of the work done in the last few years. Here I was like, OK, you're downplaying the benefits of the switch, solid argument. BUT NO! No, the "fact" that it would require a massive deletion of all the stuff that's been done, INCREASES the chance that it's all in aid of a console port: "All of a sudden, those rumors of an inevitable console port aren’t looking so far-fetched now after all, are they?" Seriously. This is S-Grade trolling, I never saw it coming, I gotta tip my fancy hat to him for that one.

  7. #30862
    Originally Posted by Ben Parry View Post (Source)
    Ok, then we reference CryEngine 4. Which doesn't exist.
    Isn't this v4 naming for easier communication though, and therefore appropriate? v5 is the current, and v3 existed, so isn't it succinct to refer to the intermediate stage as v4?

    Between CryEngine 3 and CryEngine 5, CryTek decided to re-brand the engine to simply "CryEngine" without the version identifier - the subversions released under that re-branding were 3.6.x to 3.8.x. If when referring to that timeline of subversions in a discussion involving the overall engine history, using the correct term of simply "CryEngine" would surely cause confusion?

  8. #30863
    Originally Posted by GTuk View Post (Source)
    Isn't this v4 naming for easier communication though, and therefore appropriate? v5 is the current, and v3 existed, so isn't it succinct to refer to the intermediate stage as v4?

    Between CryEngine 3 and CryEngine 5, CryTek decided to re-brand the engine to simply "CryEngine" without the version identifier - the subversions released under that re-branding were 3.6.x to 3.8.x. If when referring to that timeline of subversions in a discussion involving the overall engine history, using the correct term of simply "CryEngine" would surely cause confusion?
    I'd forgotten that they briefly removed the number, but he refers to SC as being based on CryEngine 3, when it's 3.7/3.8, so for consistency it makes sense to say Lumberyard is based on 3.8. Five is right out.
    You know what they say about mud-wrestling a pig...

  9. #30864
    Originally Posted by Ben Parry View Post (Source)
    I'd forgotten that they briefly removed the number, but he refers to SC as being based on CryEngine 3, when it's 3.7/3.8, so for consistency it makes sense to say Lumberyard is based on 3.8. Five is right out.
    Actually he says 3.x, because it is unknown, with CIG's open development, when they stopped updating their engine. I also hate to break it to you but 3.7/3.8 is still Cryengine 3.
    "Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life, probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry."

    "She's a beautiful ship. Shapely, seductive. I'm gonna fly her brains out." --Captain Zapp Brannigan

  10. #30865
    So apparently, SC is not a 3D — or even a 2D — game any more…


  11. #30866
    Originally Posted by 1500 View Post (Source)
    I also hate to break it to you but 3.7/3.8 is still Cryengine 3.
    According to CryTek themselves, 3.7.x and 3.8.x are subversions of "CryEngine" following its temporary re-branding, not "CryEngine 3" (3.0.x to 3.5.x).

  12. #30867
    Originally Posted by GTuk View Post (Source)
    According to CryTek themselves, 3.7.x and 3.8.x are subversions of "CryEngine" following its temporary re-branding, not "CryEngine 3" (3.0.x to 3.5.x).
    yes, and have fun having that conversation. Some times it's easier to ignore stupid naming conventions when those naming conventions just confuse the issue. It is just easier to say Cryengine 3 and move on. Also CIG didn't start with 3.7, they merged the code, so CIG did in fact start with CryEngine 3 and we don't know who much of 3.7 or 3.8 they added in.
    "Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life, probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry."

    "She's a beautiful ship. Shapely, seductive. I'm gonna fly her brains out." --Captain Zapp Brannigan

  13. #30868
    Originally Posted by 1500 View Post (Source)
    Actually he says 3.x, because it is unknown, with CIG's open development, when they stopped updating their engine. I also hate to break it to you but 3.7/3.8 is still Cryengine 3.
    That doesn't make CryEngine 4 a real thing though, which was my point.
    The reason the CE version number for StarEngine is unknown is because 3.7 was the last full-version update taken, but 3.8 code has been integrated where it's been wanted. This has been openly discussed in the past.

  14. #30869
    Originally Posted by Tippis View Post (Source)
    So apparently, SC is not a 3D — or even a 2D — game any more…

    Assuming CIG are referring to the volume of explorable space (and not a straight line ) then the dimensions of the Stanton map are somewhere in the region of:
    • Volume = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000km3
    • Z axis = 200,000km (previously announced)
    • X & Y axis = 707,107,781km (or 4.73AU)

    At these current sizes, a Star System will have a maximum radius of ~2.38AU. With the Solar System being ~50AU in radius (distance from Sol to the Kuiper Belt) it will need to be scaled down 20:1 to fit, or slightly less if Pluto is to be considered the outer-most planetary body (~39AU from Sol).

    Space is no longer "big"

  15. #30870
    Originally Posted by Ben Parry View Post (Source)
    That doesn't make CryEngine 4 a real thing though, which was my point.
    The reason the CE version number for StarEngine is unknown is because 3.7 was the last full-version update taken, but 3.8 code has been integrated where it's been wanted. This has been openly discussed in the past.
    So you have problems with this single line and as such complain about all of it in general terms? Not sure anyone said it was a thing that got released. Do you have a quote?

    The last version that CE3 gen was released in Dec 2015. Note that CE4 was never released publicly; instead it was folded into what became the core of CE5.
    "Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very sad life, probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry."

    "She's a beautiful ship. Shapely, seductive. I'm gonna fly her brains out." --Captain Zapp Brannigan

Page 2058 of 2912 FirstFirst ... 20482054205520562057205820592060206120622068 ... LastLast