There's a contradiction here but I can't quite place it.
Album of images from Dev Diary 2 video
- Thread starter StuartGT
- Start date
Point is there are planets of similar size in the universe as in Star Citizen. So theoretically such planets exist and thus it is a valid size.
Kepler-37b = Radius: 2,439.7 km , a little bigger than MicroTech.
Last edited:
Just to add to others, no it doesn't have full sized planets, and no it doesn't have entire cities. It has textures and objects for the outside of a city or two,and some internal hubs. You know, social hubs.
Also - if the "entire galaxy" thing doesn't fly, where is Star Citizen's galaxy? They cant build one, and certainly not by hand painting - over and over - the existing planet(oids).
There are cities in real life with much fewer and smaller buildings, yet they are cities. So the amount of buildings are enough to warrant the title of a city. It isn't fully populated and interactive though.
Kepler-37b = Radius: 2,439.7 km , a little bigger than MicroTech. That is quite similar to a real life planet in size.
Indeed
Valid size, yes. Full size, no. Scaled-down is literally not full size. For example, MicroTech's in-alpha diameter is 2,000km, while it's lore-described diameter is 10,328km.
The cities in SC are the same as the city we see on the outside of a Coriolis.
With the same interactivity.
Don't you see?
I never said I only wanted ray-tracing, it would be a big improvement though.
In terms of buildings, the surface ports of ED are much smaller than the cities in SC. The cityscapes are way cooler in SC imo.
Last edited:
My point is they are surface noise. Not cities.
Except they have 1g on planets that don't support that level of gravity. So they are not just small planets. They also don't have orbital mechanics. They also said they would do Earth, and in that case, a scaled down Earth wouldn't fit with the "there are small planets in the universe" excuse.
Now, personally, since CIG have never claimed to making an accurate representation of planets, just pretty planets, I have no problem with that.
I'm sure (should CIG ever get that far) when adding new systems they may come up with all sorts of unrealisitc planets. Rule of cool seems to be a factor at CIG.
Also you point out CIG keep updating the graphics. This in itself is a problem. You keep going back and refreshing the graphics on old assets every time CR sees a trailer for a new game and has a panic attack his assets are looking old, that's one good way to ensure you never deliver anything.
Yeah, its really amazing how much stuff is packed into the city. Even years later, i can be driving around and spot things i've never noticed before.
More content in a single street in GTA5 than in the whole of Star Citizen.
It's a work in progress. The game is not fully released yet.
You can raise the bar of what defines a planet so high that even ED's planets don't qualify. A real planet has an inner core and an outer core. Where is the magma? Where is the real-time simulation of erosion or tectonic plates? None of ED's planets have that.True, they spend too much time on graphics rather than gameplay.
Last edited:
The game is not released yet.
It's a work in progress. The game is not fully released yet.
Yeah, but i don't think their planets are going to grow
Has this workofart made past Alpha yet? Is it ever likely to? Why bother comparing a released game to one that apparently remains static in alpha?
When SC has a released version, then would be the time to compare... All you appear to be saying currently is that "This tech demo is better than that released game" which is slightly odd...
ETA: Are they building SC on the Unreal 5 engine? If not, why not?
SC was just one of many examples of games that look better than ED. Other one is Witcher 3 which was released a bit later than ED, but got a couple of major free graphics updates.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if they add major graphics improvements before release of Odyssey.
Why before release of Odyssey? That wouldn't make much sense.