Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Hello all,

Our previous SC thread reached the 10,000 post limit. As such, it's time for a new thread for Star Citizen discussions. If you want to discuss Star Citizen, this is the place to do so!

As always, the following rules are in effect for this thread (in addition to the per-forum rules here).
  1. If you cannot debate the subject, and decide to debate, troll, flame, harass, stalk the user/person - your post(s) and all follow up posts will be removed and moderated.
  2. This thread is for the discussion of Star Citizen only. Off-topic discussions will be removed.
  3. Moderation will be dealt with by the Community managers and volunteer moderators. There is no need to publically call for moderation. Simply report any posts for review by clicking the icon.
  4. Posting of offensive, degrading, or mocking content will not be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Hi Surfoot, thank you. But what makes you sure that the rest of the game which need 64 bit precision isn't using it?
The quote from Ben makes it clear to me, that the areas where it needed are 64 bit.
64-bit operations can take more time to execute, so code that deals with numbers that need to be large and precise (eg positions within a solar system) are done at 64-bit, but values that don't benefit much from that (eg player health, light brightness) are done at 32-bit. A lot of the 64-bit conversion work was the process of working through every system and figuring out what precision it actually needed.
Of course I see the wonkyness of physics but couldn`t this be related to other problems with the engine? I see Cryengine wasn`t made for what SC tries to archive and they still do workarounds to make things happen, like the ship in ship physics. I sometimes ask myself if they really can make so much more workarounds and customisation to CryEngine/Lymberyard/StarEngine that it will work somewhat flawlessly?
 
And then one day Elite's FPS will get released and we will watch how it's claimed by thousands of players that it's pointless, bad, useless, etc, etc, while vocies like yours (immersion) will be drowned out. Because Elite is a released game, while SC is alpha.
Thats my thinking as well. People grant space legs such potential but a game like X4 which made space legs a focal point hasnt receoved as much success as one should expect. Its not a bad game (I m still waiting for a sale, damn you steam) and being able to walk around have been mentioned favorably in reviews its just that in the scale of the game and what you can do space legs dont rate all that high so most people/streamers I watch dont pay much attention to space legs anymore and take it for granted.

AFAIK space legs is still THE primary point in Star Citizen. While X4 might not be what SC fans expect it at least managed to bash the ball out of the park and define a new line to cross for Star Citizen because looking good and walking around....not gonna cut it anymore. ED has not shared any details yet but we can be pretty sure that whatever it already has will remain as solid as it is right now. Again....SC has not managed to finish/complete any task yet and has next to no foundation that would allow for a complete game to be built upon. The gameplay loops, bare as they are can certainly be used to create something but the technical prowess of the CIG devs as well as the lack in direction/leadership seems to be critical in all this.

From the very start everybody undertood how "special " and immense a project like Star Citizen would be. It was never perceived as "easy". But some high-tier employees have left the company early and we can assume that the remaining taskforce consists of less capable individuals, not trying to bash em. If CIG has any "great talent" still on payroll, make sure to point em out.

A proof of concept usually is a seperated module that has the only task to demonstrate capabilities and allow funding. Thats true for SC and how it went. The only problem I see is that CIG took the demo to turn into a full game and that demo probably was never designed that way (to allow expansion to this degree). Not sure if they tried to get out of that pitch with 3.0 but it looks like they mavouvered themselves into the same corner again without advancing development in any meaningful way. They just added a ton of new stuff but as far as the old things go, hardly anything is nailed down or even touched anymore.

and almost first :)
 
Tippis said:
]Because the only thing they ever show is the stuff that makes money for them, not anything that would actually constitute progress towards those dreams. See the above issue of developing backwards and the consequences of this wholly incompetent approach.
The reason why people think they don't know what they're doing is that at every opportunity when they talk about anything related to software development, it is almost completely wrong, backwards, uninformed, and in many ways just outright stupid. We have a strong suspicion of why they're doing it, though…
How should they make videos about code changes, working on netcode and the stuff necessary to have all that running? I dont think they would get so much money showing game code and the development environment. I guess the people ask for those kind of ship sale videos. Those people who buy the ships then help to keep the boat afloat. I guess it`s a mixture of wanting to fly that ship in game and dreaming about gameplay assosiated with it and support development to have it come true.
 
How should they make videos about code changes, working on netcode and the stuff necessary to have all that running?
Protip: they shouldn't. This should all be solved by year two or three into the development. Sure, after that you can run into problems (see: Elite and being unable to instance SRVs for multicrew, because they are technically ship instances), but by that point you just go around it and don't rework your whole engine - you'll do it in few years as a whole with a major rewrite.

The sole fact that every time CIG solves some "breakthrough revolutionary technology" (it's not breakthrough and it's not revolutionary, it's renamed stuff that other games have done for decades) some new blocker appears in year eight of development should be a humongous red flag. This stuff is the stuff you do first and go from it, not the other way around.
 
Thats my thinking as well. People grant space legs such potential but a game like X4 which made space legs a focal point hasnt receoved as much success as one should expect. Its not a bad game (I m still waiting for a sale, damn you steam) and being able to walk around have been mentioned favorably in reviews its just that in the scale of the game and what you can do space legs dont rate all that high so most people/streamers I watch dont pay much attention to space legs anymore and take it for granted.

AFAIK space legs is still THE primary point in Star Citizen. While X4 might not be what SC fans expect it at least managed to bash the ball out of the park and define a new line to cross for Star Citizen because looking good and walking around....not gonna cut it anymore. ED has not shared any details yet but we can be pretty sure that whatever it already has will remain as solid as it is right now. Again....SC has not managed to finish/complete any task yet and has next to no foundation that would allow for a complete game to be built upon. The gameplay loops, bare as they are can certainly be used to create something but the technical prowess of the CIG devs as well as the lack in direction/leadership seems to be critical in all this.
Well the X series is not known for having space legs. So I guess the most people playing a X game focussing on it`s core aspects, ship fights, building, trading, having a huge fleet and so on. The space legs is a nice to have add to X. It´s not build around space legs like SC is. SC in it`s nature is a FPS. The detailed ships have a soul, there are not just functional for flying from A to B, they are also great detailed and you can do stuff in it. The fact you can just leave your seat open the doors and EVA out of it AND for example enter another structure (not only another ship) is unique, point. As long as another game don`t let me do this, it´s not the same like in SC. Note, thats only for comparing the space leg gameplay, because you asked why it`s overlooked in X.
 
How should they make videos about code changes, working on netcode and the stuff necessary to have all that running? I dont think they would get so much money showing game code and the development environment. I guess the people ask for those kind of ship sale videos. Those people who buy the ships then help to keep the boat afloat. I guess it`s a mixture of wanting to fly that ship in game and dreaming about gameplay assosiated with it and support development to have it come true.
The same way similar videos were made in every other project that had some kind of “making of” side-commentary or documentation (cf. Doublefine, Ninja Theory, even good old Bethesda etc). They could even go into deep code geekery similar to various dev tracks seen at larger conferences, although they cost a bit to produce. They did so far a while, but it got cut to give more time and space to the pointless ephemera. They could even live up their long-abandoned promise of being the most open development ever and actually show how the sausage gets made, ground hooves, warts, and all.

The problem here isn't just as Sanya suggests that maybe they should have gotten the most of that out of the way beforehand, but also that, by relying on videos of flash stuff to keep the money flowing, they are unable to define a scope and boundary to develop towards and to stay within. This is a project that would have benefited to a near-infinite degree from having a fixed budget, and throwing more money on the pile at this stage only hurts them because they're just increasingly locked into a really vicious circle. They spend money to produce flashy ships and flashy videos selling those ships, which ultimately fails to bring in enough money to keep up the production of flashy videos and ships, never mind any actual gameplay and network coding.

They're losing money, and at seemingly an ever-faster rate the deeper they go in that spiral. Not just because the production of flash costs more than it brings in, but also because of the constant need to justify that flash with more and more theory-crafted gameplay mechanisms and game dynamics that never see the light of day. All of which increases the technical debt and the need for more money that they're already failing to acquire in sufficient numbers even as they rely on the best-selling tactics available to them. Thus, if they only brought in a limited amount of cash based on the much geekier sales pitch of in-depth coding talk, then that would be a good thing: they would have to limit development to what they can actually demonstrably produce.
 
Last edited:
Well the X series is not known for having space legs.
Space sims in general are not known for having space legs. Star Citizen is supposedly a space sim. Go figure ;)

SC in it`s nature is a FPS.
SC in its nature is dreams, that's what it is. You ask ten citizens what it is and you'll get ten. Different. Answers.Nobody knows what SC will actually be, because CI leaves it intentionally vague and it can be everything for everyone (as long as it stays in development), so it can at the same time be:

  • mainly space sim, but also mainly FPS
  • pure PvP, but also (PvE slider, remember?) PvE anytime
  • arcade stuff for anyone (supposedly millions of players will play it!), but at the same time hardcore sim
  • everyone will "pave their way" and be rich if they want to, but at the same time you will have loads of poor players willing to work on your ship
  • death will mean something (unlike in "other games") and medical gameplay will be worthwhile, but at the same time the game will be "more deadly than CoD" with super low TTK

And so on, and so on. SC is promises, not mechanics.
 
Hello all,

Our previous SC thread reached the 10,000 post limit. As such, it's time for a new thread for Star Citizen discussions. If you want to discuss Star Citizen, this is the place to do so!

As always, the following rules are in effect for this thread (in addition to the per-forum rules here).
  1. If you cannot debate the subject, and decide to debate, troll, flame, harass, stalk the user/person - your post(s) and all follow up posts will be removed and moderated.
  2. This thread is for the discussion of Star Citizen only. Off-topic discussions will be removed.
  3. Moderation will be dealt with by the Community managers and volunteer moderators. There is no need to publically call for moderation. Simply report any posts for review by clicking the icon.
  4. Posting of offensive, degrading, or mocking content will not be tolerated.
Wait, are you saying new forum can't handle big threads neither? Or is it just tradition now to make new SC thread?
 
Space sims in general are not known for having space legs. Star Citizen is supposedly a space sim. Go figure ;)
SC IS known for having space legs. It seems to me that people want it in a space sim nowadays.


SC in its nature is dreams, that's what it is. You ask ten citizens what it is and you'll get ten. Different. Answers.Nobody knows what SC will actually be, because CI leaves it intentionally vague and it can be everything for everyone (as long as it stays in development), so it can at the same time be:
  • mainly space sim, but also mainly FPS
  • pure PvP, but also (PvE slider, remember?) PvE anytime
  • arcade stuff for anyone (supposedly millions of players will play it!), but at the same time hardcore sim
  • everyone will "pave their way" and be rich if they want to, but at the same time you will have loads of poor players willing to work on your ship
  • death will mean something (unlike in "other games") and medical gameplay will be worthwhile, but at the same time the game will be "more deadly than CoD" with super low TTK
And so on, and so on. SC is promises, not mechanics.
It´s absolutely ok for me that it can be everything to anyone. Why does it need to be specific? Why does it need the traditional approach to say what it can at the release and what not,
as long as backers are happy? Sure there are always people who like to have feature x faster then feature y. But as long as development continues I´m happy. If not, it`s ok for me, I just spend about 100 Euros (Aurora LN LTI, Cutlass Black with LTI and both "games" PU and SQ42). 20 more then for elite (40 for the game and 40 for the LTE). I have and will not spend more regardless what ship sales they do. For me it´s just a game and I treat it as this. I´m sure SQ42 will come out. Dont know if that will be the game all wanted, I´m more interested in the PU.
 
SC IS known for having space legs. It seems to me that people want it in a space sim nowadays.
That only holds if citizens are a distillation and perfect representation of genre enthusiasts. Given the interest shown in SC, and indeed in other games where space and walking have been combined, it rather seems like this would be a pretty drastic over-generalisation. SC is known for having space legs. It is also known for having low engagement numbers.

So no, it rather seems like citizens want space legs; what “people” want remains largely unknown, although previous experiments have suggested that when actually having to deal with it in practice, they tend to not enjoy it.
 
SC IS known for having space legs. It seems to me that people want it in a space sim nowadays.
Err.... What did I miss in BDSSE?

My bet is they struggle so much with making a space sim they're now trying everything they can to avoid making one, and struggle making a fps along the way, and that's comical given they're working with a fps dedicated engine.
 
Last edited:
It´s absolutely ok for me that it can be everything to anyone.
But it cannot - that's the point of my post. The examples I listed are mutually exclusive once the game is delivered. It's like coming to a restaurant and they tell you that because you are a mixed group of vegans and non-vegans, they will make you a beef steak, but it will be vegan, i.e. it's a nonsense, something will have to go and half of your group will be disappointed (if not the whole group). SC is such a restaurant - it promises everything, but it will lead to people being very disappointed. And some of them already paid thousands of dollars for the meal.
 
Space sims in general are not known for having space legs. Star Citizen is supposedly a space sim. Go figure ;)



SC in its nature is dreams, that's what it is. You ask ten citizens what it is and you'll get ten. Different. Answers.Nobody knows what SC will actually be, because CI leaves it intentionally vague and it can be everything for everyone (as long as it stays in development), so it can at the same time be:

  • mainly space sim, but also mainly FPS
  • pure PvP, but also (PvE slider, remember?) PvE anytime
  • arcade stuff for anyone (supposedly millions of players will play it!), but at the same time hardcore sim
  • everyone will "pave their way" and be rich if they want to, but at the same time you will have loads of poor players willing to work on your ship
  • death will mean something (unlike in "other games") and medical gameplay will be worthwhile, but at the same time the game will be "more deadly than CoD" with super low TTK
And so on, and so on. SC is promises, not mechanics.
Star Citizen certainly isn't an FPS for the majority of backers...they mostly fly spaceships. As for purely PvP...Ci¬G's own stats clearly show that only 16% of the playerbase actively engage in PvP combat of any sort. (I posted the link in the other thread).

This blinkered viewpoint that anything with legs..space or not...is merely to support FPS combat is way off base....almost as bad as assuming everyone with a spaceship wants to shoot someone elses ship down with it.

SC has legs simply because your avatar is human..whether you decide to use those legs to run on over and shoot someone else in the face is entirely up to you...most folks don't. ;)
 
Top Bottom