Page 452 of 462 FirstFirst ... 442448449450451452453454455456 ... LastLast
Results 6,766 to 6,780 of 6922

Thread: The Star Citizen Thread v8

  1. #6766
    Originally Posted by Coloratura View Post (Source)
    The only reason we got Freelancer was because someone put the kibosh on Roberts' overbudget, overdue program, and released it rough after some quick cleanup. This happens to the man every time it seems. This time, though, someone gave him a truckload of money, and no one to say he couldn't do it.
    You don't understand the troubles he faces and the pressure he's under - they are out to get him and ruin his vision! It could be said to be reminiscent of the struggles of Francis Ford Copolla when he made Apocalypse Now - they simply couldn't grasp his greatness and let him achieve such heights in the art of film making.

    Originally Posted by jefranklin18 View Post (Source)
    with a story written by a 12 year old.
    IMPOSSIBLE! Would a 12 year old get Mark Hamill and Gary Oldman and er.... some other people? I think not! It will be the most awesomest awesome space movie ever game ever with romance and action and feelings not just pew pew and swoopy swoop.

  2. #6767
    Perhaps that is the "game" itself? A game which centers on a "game in development" if u can wrap your head around that idea? When u hook in all the other elements such as media including website, twitch, youtube, promoters, etc... its all a big "Star Citizen game within a game." Those who play SC are playing a game which involves an aspect of social media reality coupled with a never ending release of "game content" if you can follow my train of thought here...?! There will never be an actual game.... the "game" is now.

  3. #6768
    Having now upgraded to 3.1.2, I had a fly around this afternoon, and it's still all judders and glitches. It also seems almost nailed on that your first attempt at playing will crash - always for me the first time I fly away from Port Olisar.

    After reloading I flew down to Daymar and messed about - you can land on top of emergency shelters, as I discovered while practising landing. Wasn't sure how I was going to get back up on top of the shelter to board my ship, but the game crashed as I ran towards the shelter anyway so I guess Science will have to wait.

    I still don't like the flight model (though I've got a bit more used to its oddities) and I really hate the cockpit view, it's so restricted (even in my Aurora which is supposedly one of the better ones?). Surely a game which boasts such graphic fidelity would make the most of the cockpit to show off the view - at the moment I feel like a medieval knight peering out of his helmet visor.

    Daymar looked pretty good though in F4 view mode, albeit completely deserted and lacking in content.

    Originally Posted by WindWpn View Post (Source)
    Perhaps that is the "game" itself? A game which centers on a "game in development" if u can wrap your head around that idea? When u hook in all the other elements such as media including website, twitch, youtube, promoters, etc... its all a big "Star Citizen game within a game." Those who play SC are playing a game which involves an aspect of social media reality coupled with a never ending release of "game content" if you can follow my train of thought here...?! There will never be an actual game.... the "game" is now.
    Yes, it's the Star Citizen "meta" - it's the best thing about Star Citizen currently.

  4. #6769
    Originally Posted by Zieman View Post (Source)
    Same old. Same as in same same.
    Jeez. This is getting pretty boring now.

  5. #6770
    In other news, tomorrow there's going to be hearing on the prospective protective order filed by CIG. I'm guessing it won't result in an immediate verdict, though.

  6. #6771
    I dunno what Chris Roberts was thinking hiring Michael Cohen.

  7. #6772
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Jeez. This is getting pretty boring now.
    It lost its appeal isn't it

  8. #6773
    Originally Posted by Cmdr Eagleboy View Post (Source)
    Jeez. This is getting pretty boring now.
    They could always do another ship sale for another non-existant ship.... oh wait, they just did that... again.

  9. #6774
    I was on Speccy a few moments ago with a few issues I'm having. The toxic flash mob were on hand the second I complained. At least it will be free of hackers and possibly players upon release

  10. #6775
    I have a sad. I usually read the SA forums with my morning coffee to check out the latest SC chit chat, and today i can't saying need membership.

    I seem to recall this happened before and then reverted again.

    Is it just lowtax trying to drum up more subscriptions? Perhaps he has been paying to Chris Roberts... i mean, he does sell JPGs (well, people pay for avatar changes).

    EDIT: Bah, he got me, i paid lowtax's tax.

  11. #6776
    Aha! So the flight model is broken - not that those with eyes to see who've tried flying around in SC need confirmation, but at least an admission from the dev responsible that they're "working on it".

    3.0 was a pretty massive undertaking. Over the course of last year, I was tasked with creating the Gravlev sim (also broken atm), atmospheric flight sim, an AI scripting system for ship control and an interface for animating ships in cut-scenes, all while dealing with bugs caused by changes to the engine like the new physics zone system and item 2.0, as well as the addition of a number of new ships that pushed the envelope for the flight model. When I detailed the necessary changes to fix this issue when it first came to light mid last year, the decision was made that adding these other features, which were blocking other teams, was the higher priority. It's a tough call, but that was the call. Of course I would have liked IFCS to be stable on the 3.0 release.
    Sounds like development hell to me, but wadda I know?

  12. #6777
    Originally Posted by Jonny Shiloh View Post (Source)
    Aha! So the flight model is broken - not that those with eyes to see who've tried flying around in SC need confirmation, but at least an admission from the dev responsible that they're "working on it".



    Sounds like development hell to me, but wadda I know?
    So many tasks for a single person in a multi-hundred taskforce at work in a multi-offices company. Everything is perfectly fine.

    I have a sudden remembrance of Trademark issues like Bethesda/Mojang over "Scrolls", or King/Stoic over "Saga"... I can't help thinking of EA's lawyers rubbing their hands with a large grin, waiting patiently for the best moment to strike CIG over the use of "Origin".

  13. #6778
    Originally Posted by Jonny Shiloh View Post (Source)
    Aha! So the flight model is broken - not that those with eyes to see who've tried flying around in SC need confirmation, but at least an admission from the dev responsible that they're "working on it".



    Sounds like development hell to me, but wadda I know?
    Also…
    Sure. The fix is to split IFCS into two parts. One part is the control logic, where IFCS determines what state the ship should be in at any given moment based on player input and other criteria. The other part is the physics processing where IFCS calculates the necessary forces in order to achieve the desired control state determined by the control logic.
    Yes, let's toss the input-sensitive part of the simulation into the “please do this whenever it's convenient” queue where it has to fight for attention with all the other stuff that should also be done when it's convenient. That's definitely a good way to achieve crisp control scheme (just like using “target values” as opposed to actually having proper physics control the thing).

  14. #6779
    Originally Posted by Tippis View Post (Source)
    Also…

    Yes, let's toss the input-sensitive part of the simulation into the “please do this whenever it's convenient” queue where it has to fight for attention with all the other stuff that should also be done when it's convenient. That's definitely a good way to achieve crisp control scheme (just like using “target values” as opposed to actually having proper physics control the thing).
    I think you unforgivably forgot the famous adage: “... the flight model is so good that it is perceived as bad”.

    We ve come full circle

  15. #6780
    Originally Posted by Viajero View Post (Source)
    I think you unforgivably forgot the famous adage: “... the flight model is so good that it is perceived as bad”.

    We ve come full circle
    Oh, right. I forgot about that. Never mind then.
    Lazy-update inputs and target-based physics is the exquisitestest of things — my mistake.