Page 483 of 667 FirstFirst ... 473479480481482483484485486487493 ... LastLast
Results 7,231 to 7,245 of 10005

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Star Citizen Thread v6

  1. #7231
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    Ofcourse, thats an absurd question. No offense, but you either are confused about what the words random/pg means or you know nothing of astronomy.
    It's not an absurd question. I fully understand what the word random means. It should be obvious what I meant from the context.

    My point is that SC doesn't need to use any Stellar Forge technology. You can use other techniques to generate a galaxy such that the distribution of stars is convincing. You can create a function that determines the probability that a system of a certain type will be found at a certain point in space relative to other points. We already have over 1 billion (?) stars mapped so you can just extrapolate from that data to complete the galaxy.

    The bottom line is generating a galaxy is not a huge problem. And the difference in quality of these generated galaxies is not something that most people would notice.

  2. #7232
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    It's not an absurd question. I fully understand what the word random means. It should be obvious what I meant from the context.

    My point is that SC doesn't need to use any Stellar Forge technology. You can use other techniques to generate a galaxy such that the distribution of stars is convincing. You can create a function that determines the probability that a system of a certain type will be found at a certain point in space relative to other points. We already have over 1 billion (?) stars mapped so you can just extrapolate from that data to complete the galaxy.

    The bottom line is generating a galaxy is not a huge problem. And the difference in quality of these generated galaxies is not something that most people would notice.
    True, first you will need orbiting mechanics, world creator tools (they clearly don't have that yet) and people who can design the levels of what content there should be on the planets. All of that is still lacking.

  3. #7233
    Originally Posted by frostypaw View Post (Source)
    Do you mean for 3.0 or the whole game?!?

    Because with 3.0 tasks running up to December in the current plans that leaves a VAST amount of work for two years don't you think? Still not got one complete system but you think they'll do all the rest and all the career paths and all the systems fully working in that time?

    Serially? I think the 2022 date is possible.... just. But next year and a bit? Not a hope

    You think expecting a release 2018 is hyperbole now


    Seriously tho. If I d take a step back from my belief that SC will simply collapse before it makes a release (of a reasonable functioning game, they could of course always release all the junk they have at the moment) I consider 2022 more realistic but at that point even the much touted visuals will be outdated and nothing special anymore. Just consider what kinds of technological leaps we had in the last 4 years regarding processing power. Hell maybe even VR sets will be under 100 bucks then and integrated in almost everything except for Star Citizen because its core doesnt allow it ^^

    But if the project manages to stay alive till 2022 the remaining backers are so well trained that they will allow CiG to reset the whole thing, kick everything in the bin and start over from scratch THIS TIME with even more fidelity and an up-to-date engine that can handle the challenges. Might be funny to see how much Star Citizen will have cost at that point.

  4. #7234
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    It's not an absurd question. I fully understand what the word random means. It should be obvious what I meant from the context.

    My point is that SC doesn't need to use any Stellar Forge technology. You can use other techniques to generate a galaxy such that the distribution of stars is convincing. You can create a function that determines the probability that a system of a certain type will be found at a certain point in space relative to other points. We already have over 1 billion (?) stars mapped so you can just extrapolate from that data to complete the galaxy.

    The bottom line is generating a galaxy is not a huge problem. And the difference in quality of these generated galaxies is not something that most people would notice.
    Actually it really is hard. PG is actually very hard to do and you are doing it a disservice trying to down play it. Keep in mind that CIG has spent years trying to implement some form of PG and have so far failed at it. Yes they would defiantly notice the difference, they already do between the different types of games that use PG.



  5. #7235
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    It's not an absurd question. I fully understand what the word random means. It should be obvious what I meant from the context.

    My point is that SC doesn't need to use any Stellar Forge technology. You can use other techniques to generate a galaxy such that the distribution of stars is convincing. You can create a function that determines the probability that a system of a certain type will be found at a certain point in space relative to other points. We already have over 1 billion (?) stars mapped so you can just extrapolate from that data to complete the galaxy.

    The bottom line is generating a galaxy is not a huge problem. And the difference in quality of these generated galaxies is not something that most people would notice.
    I m not sure if you intentionally downplay the task to sound like childs play (which it isnt) but in any case...it seems to be a massive problem for CiG

  6. #7236
    "Just imagine, a game where the landscape and inhabitants transform based on the stocks of the company that made the game" Peter Molydeux

  7. #7237
    They already have their vast galaxy already mapped out and set in deep lore

    Using PG techniques would invalidate all that handcrafting they have spent years on.

  8. #7238
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    It's not an absurd question. I fully understand what the word random means. It should be obvious what I meant from the context.

    My point is that SC doesn't need to use any Stellar Forge technology. You can use other techniques to generate a galaxy such that the distribution of stars is convincing. You can create a function that determines the probability that a system of a certain type will be found at a certain point in space relative to other points. We already have over 1 billion (?) stars mapped so you can just extrapolate from that data to complete the galaxy.

    The bottom line is generating a galaxy is not a huge problem. And the difference in quality of these generated galaxies is not something that most people would notice.
    Wait, what? You just described procedural generation. You cant say "We dont need to use PG, we could for example also use PG." And I have no clue where the conclusion "So PG is no huge problem." comes from. "Rather than PG we could use PG, so PG is easy." is hands-down the weirdest reasoning I have seen in this topic for a while. Add to that that CIG has been wholly unable to show they have even basic PG tech and I am just a bit lost by your post.

    So to make it clear: Yes, you do need PG. No, random is not the same. No, CIG has not shown any decent PG.

  9. #7239
    Originally Posted by Snarfbuckle View Post (Source)
    I use the same maneuvering thrusters to Roll and Pitch but for some reason using them for Yaw and they work at 50%.
    Makes sense, doesn't it? Rotation around pitch and roll axes would use the same quad of thrusters spread out over a predominantly thin and flat surface, just in different combinations: front row + back row in counter-thrust = pitch. Left side + right side in counter-thrust = roll. Yaw would use a different set of side-mounted thrusters, or at a pitch the same ones but with only a part of the thrust vector being acting around the yaw axis.

    …and it also doesn't snap your neck in violent side-to-side motion, so even with better thrust, you'd probably want to limit it to save the pilot. If we had fish-shaped ships — ones that were tall and thin rather than flat and wide — then yeah, you'd probably expect better yawing ability because those manoeuvring thruster quads would now be situated around the roll and yaw axes, but even then there's the lore argument to make that you want to save the pilot from the forces.

    I know that the yaw limitations are often used — doubly so among citizens, but among others too — to illustrate some kind of point about ED having “bad” physics compared to SC's supposedly “good” ones. But really, that's so backwards it beggars belief. Not only is there a trivial physics-based explanation why yaw would be limited, but there's also a sensible user argument to make. And that's before we even get into the embarrassing fact that SC has no physics as part of it's “flight” “model” and that it doesn't make much sense from any kind of lore or UI or UX standpoint either.

    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    Wait, what? You just described procedural generation. You cant say "We dont need to use PG, we could for example also use PG." And I have no clue where the conclusion "So PG is no huge problem." comes from. "Rather than PG we could use PG, so PG is easy." is hands-down the weirdest reasoning I have seen in this topic for a while. Add to that that CIG has been wholly unable to show they have even basic PG tech and I am just a bit lost by your post.

    So to make it clear: Yes, you do need PG. No, random is not the same. No, CIG has not shown any decent PG.
    Empty-quoting this because if I tried to answer the way I want to, the mods would get very angry with me…

    Ok, not entirely empty. One addition: generating a galaxy is a huge problem; the difference in quality would be immediately noticeable by anyone with even a fleeting interest in the topic. It's such a huge problem that you'll find all of two games who have actually done it: ED and EVE, and EVE did it on an absolutely minute and mindbogglingly simplistic scale, comparatively speaking…

    That's how difficult it is: that even the really simple case is something that is far beyond the capabilities of most — and infinitely beyond CIG's abilities.

  10. #7240
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    You dont need to grind, you need to play the game and you'll get it at some point. If you want it nownownownow the most efficient thing to do would be to do something over and over, but that is your choice.
    By "play the game" you mean repeatedly do the same Federation missions over and over and over again. That's grinding.

    You complain about SC fans in denial but you're clearly in denial about the flaws in Elite.

    Both SC and ED are crowd funded projects that are not complete. I'm waiting for ED to create missions that are more than go from point A to B and back to A. I'm waiting for SC to give me a working version with basic functionality and missions. I think 3.0 will do that.

    I paid for both games. So far, neither have given me what I really want. I have no interest in getting into one of those fanboy arguments.

  11. #7241
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    By "play the game" you mean repeatedly do the same Federation missions over and over and over again. That's grinding.

    You complain about SC fans in denial but you're clearly in denial about the flaws in Elite.

    Both SC and ED are crowd funded projects that are not complete. I'm waiting for ED to create missions that are more than go from point A to B and back to A. I'm waiting for SC to give me a working version with basic functionality and missions. I think 3.0 will do that.

    I paid for both games. So far, neither have given me what I really want. I have no interest in getting into one of those fanboy arguments.
    This just in, new reports indicate you have to play a game in order to achieve anything in game. Learn more about this shocking new development tonight. We return you to your normal scheduled show.

  12. #7242
    Originally Posted by BlackSpaceCowboy View Post (Source)
    By "play the game" you mean repeatedly do the same Federation missions over and over and over again. That's grinding.
    You complain about SC fans in denial but you're clearly in denial about the flaws in Elite.
    Okay, then what is not grinding? If 'playing the game' is grinding, everything is grinding.

    To win titles in FIFA you have to play games over and over. Grinding!
    To top the COD leaderbord you have to kill people over and over. Grinding!
    To get the largest metropolic in CS you need to build buildings over and over. Grinding!

    Its a completely inane way of looking at things. Grinding is 'kill 1000000000 rats to reach currentlvl+1'. In ED you can reach sol by assassination, trade, smuggling, passenger missions, mining etc. You can focus on one, some or all of them. In any order you chose, whenever you want. If that is 'grinding', just say "I dont like anything in ED." Thats fine. Some people dont like football games. I dont hear them complain it is grinding though, because they just say "I dont like football games."

    To make this clear (you seem to define words very... peculiarly to be honest)
    Grinding=being forced doing the same menial thing over and over.
    ED=Being able to chose almost any activity in any order at any time.

    Notice the difference? They are opposites. Just like random and PG are opposites.

  13. #7243
    Grind getting you down? Fed up running repetitive missions?

    Buy an Idris!

    This one quick trick will relieve you of all the boredom and tedious hours spent playing the game. With a shiny new Idris you'll get straight to end-game content. Marvel at it's polygons! Bask in the fidelity! Wait patiently for other players to come along so you've got a big enough gang to fly it. Watch in delight as it wobbles it's way up from the landing pad with thrusters firing at random. Gasp as a lulzbunny in underpants glitches through your airlock and the whole ship explodes.

  14. #7244
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    Okay, then what is not grinding? If 'playing the game' is grinding, everything is grinding.

    To win titles in FIFA you have to play games over and over. Grinding!
    To top the COD leaderbord you have to kill people over and over. Grinding!
    To get the largest metropolic in CS you need to build buildings over and over. Grinding!

    Its a completely inane way of looking at things. Grinding is 'kill 1000000000 rats to reach currentlvl+1'. In ED you can reach sol by assassination, trade, smuggling, passenger missions, mining etc. You can focus on one, some or all of them. In any order you chose, whenever you want. If that is 'grinding', just say "I dont like anything in ED." Thats fine. Some people dont like football games. I dont hear them complain it is grinding though, because they just say "I dont like football games."
    Exactly. Change the definition enough and everything becomes grinding.

    Keep breathing in order to not die....grinding.

    Theres nothing in life that you wont do several times except for dying and being born. If you are desperate enough you can call pretty much everything a "grind" in this way. Usually we reserve the term for more outstanding activities tho. The first time I was confronted with the term was while playing Everquest in its first iteration (yes I m old). The game had notoriously few quests and the ones available gave next to no XP so pretty much nobody bothered to do them in the first place and simply hunkered down in a place which spawned level appropriate MoBs and just kill those for xp and loot ad infinitum. Once enemies fell out of an "optimal level range" you just moved camp and repeated the process until you hit level cap. So leveling up was a grind in Everquest because of the available activities which enabled you to level up. World of Warcraft leveling is only a grind if you fail to recognize the many different ways to earn XP and tailor the experience to your needs.

    If you manage to simply cut away all the available content and reduce an activity to its bare bones you might call it a grind even tho its not. Thats whats happening when people call ED an eternal grind even tho there are so many ways to play the game.

    Its okay to "imagine" Star Citizen to offer more but once in a while we have to leave the kids place in our head and face reality. CiG has so far failed to provide any gameframe that would allow a "life" which would not be a grind. Right now the activities you can do are so limited and few that simply playing SC is a grind if you apply the same reasoning that you do to ED.

  15. #7245
    Originally Posted by Neo-ST View Post (Source)
    What, Star toilet? Or Star flush?
    The urinals are Star Flush1.0. The toilets are refactored as Star Flush 2.0.

Page 483 of 667 FirstFirst ... 473479480481482483484485486487493 ... LastLast