Star Citizen Discussion Thread v11

[Mr.Nowak]

Even less reason to give them any money, then.
Lots of people being irreparably stupid is not a good argument for joining their ranks.

See all those numbers at the end? All that reiteration of things that already don't work, and which don't actually help create a working game? No, that's not significant technical progress — it's the very definition of running in place. Over and over and over and over again.

People join because they want to play what is there. Star Citizen offers something that people want. Otherwise both funding and activity would drop across the board. It only seems to increase. Which shows the Alpha constantly maturing and improving as the years go by.

Meshing is an iteration built on all the tech development's over the years in the same argument you make. Lots of tech runs on prerequisites. Doesn't mean it is less important, it is absolutely necessary. As explained in the Jump Point linked a few pages ago.

Each year had several tech accomplishments. It will be the same in 2020, 2021 and so on until the last hurdles are solved too.

Lol, and what does this translate to in terms of changes to the game world?

It's a matter of perspective. How did the large map or proc gen tech translate into the game world? You see the changes have a massive effect a few years down the line. All the changes on the network side will allow for meshing. It will just take time to translate as with anything in SC.

I want things now!!! That is easy to say. To accomplish them and to actively work towards them is something else.

I am curious to see how Dual Universe will end up being. They are working on similar tech challenges and are in a closed state from what I can gather.

Found this:

 

[Tuub t Tute]

*Expected shipping in Q1 2020.

So not for Xmas I am afraid. And I really hope this is not roadmap level of confidence.

Does each pair come with a free Space-ship USB drive?

 

[VR Golgot]

How did the large map or proc gen tech translate into the game world?

They added notable structural changes, to which V4 planetary tech & 1 planetary addition don't really hold a candle (they're comparatively minor extensions of those former steps). SOCS likewise doesn’t seem to be a large step change. CIG needs the former type, and for those steps to hold true... (The PU still has notable issues with collision detection etc involved in much of the glitch death. Which presumably stem from the 'large map' 64-bit positioning & the physics grid system, exacerbated by the networking. If these fundamentals are never ironed out what these core systems added to the game world is just a foundation of quicksand...)

They need to start capping some of these things off. They need some proof in the concept. Before they hit Duke Nukem Forever time-frames. Which they are definitely approaching.

Or at least, you need them to, for your certainty about the server meshing promised land to ring somewhat truer

I want things now!!! That is easy to say. To accomplish them and to actively work towards them is something else.

There is a huge difference between: 'I want things now' & 'I want signs that they can deliver what they've sold within a ten year period...'

 

[AJW]

Asynchronous Disconnection Refactor

From Wikipedia:

Code refactoring is the process of restructuring existing computer code—changing the factoring—without changing its external behavior.

Of course, if you redefine words to mean something else entirely, they can signify anything. Or nothing at all. In this case, I'd go with the latter.

 

[Tippis]

People join because they want to play what is there.

That's nice and all. Still not a reason to give them any money. Give it to a developer that actually knows what they're doing and who delivers.

CI¬G has no need for more money. They said so themselves.

If they were lying about that, why should you give them money? Because they say it will speed up development? They lied about that too, so why should you give them money? Because the say it lets them complete things? Why would you think they aren't lying about that too?

CI¬G is a dishonest company led by dishonest people who will not use your money for anything that is of any use for you. Giving them money is incredibly stupid since there is no reason whatsoever to do so.

Lots of tech runs on prerequisites. Doesn't mean it is less important, it is absolutely necessary.

You're confusing “prerequisite” with “the same thing”. Again, the fact that they have to keep revisiting the same features means they have yet to actually built any of those prerequisites yet. It just means they're stuck and can't move forward. This is particularly embarrassing since a lot of what they're stuck on is standard components with a well-known solution that they have yet been able to complete.

None of what they done moves them forward towards actually creating the game they say they're making. As AJW points out, even their own labels show that they're not actually moving forward — only remaking what is already there. This is the thing you seem to be missing about the Jump Point dribble: it's just a bunch of misused jargon to hide the fact that they have failed to build a foundation for what they're trying to do — they've even failed to build things that are built into the engine.

It will be the same in 2020, 2021 and so on until the last hurdles are solved too.

We are now in year nine. So far, no hurdles have been solved. How many hurdles are left and how long will each take?

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Well the large tech additions require you to refactor your code. The whole reason is because there have been huge changes on other parts.

If you think that from hangar to now no hurdles have been solved. Than that tells more about your perception of the project than mine. There is clear progress, it's just slow. Not for the impatient folk who want everything now. I think that progress towards meshing is going well and I am not worried about it at all. It will just take time just like the other tech developments.

My worry is more about game professions. The lack of salvage, refueling and stuff like looting.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Meh - back in the day we’d have polymorphic code that refactored itself - or yet another thing that Genuine Roberts is going to invent?

 

[Tippis]

Well the large tech additions require you to refactor your code.

Nope.

e: In fact, tell me: what do you believe code refactoring does? What problem does it solve?

 

[StuartGT]

Skynet code writes itself

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Nope.

e: In fact, tell me: what do you believe code refactoring does? What problem does it solve?

Enabling / keeping alive feratures that have to interact with new code which wasn't thought of before? Like SOCKS? Or draining the water level from the world? Something like that. Going 64 bit from 8 bit.

 

[Mr.Nowak]

Nope.
e: In fact, tell me: what do you believe code refactoring does? What problem does it solve?

SOCS caused a huge refactor on a lot of parts. I talked to several CI devs that had to work on a lot of existing code to make it function along with SOCS. It was slightly less than the OCS refactor and rework that was necessary between q1-q3 2018 but still very substantial. All entities went from existing across the server to not.

CI is constantly changing the engine and updating it. That is one of their problems. When I talked to devs they all said that they had to rework stuff over and over and over again since years. Each time stuff got better but a huge tech update pushed lot's of work again. Maintaining stuff alone is a challenge when the ground beneath you is constantly shifting.

From Glassdoor:

My number one gripe is how inefficient I felt trying to figure out what was happening where in the engine. It felt like a massive waste of time trying to piece together a map of the engine architecture when there must be people there who could teach me the big picture of what and where things happened in a frame. I had no confidence working when it felt I was looking though a pin hole. Eventually I got to spend time with a wonderful mentor, after which it was a whole new ball game.

--

 

[VR Golgot]

My worry is more about game professions. The lack of salvage, refueling and stuff like looting.

The stuff scheduled for 2017?

Hey, it's just slow. Not for the impatient folk who want everything now.

 

[Tippis]

SOCS caused a huge refactor on a lot of parts. I talked to several CI devs that had to work on a lot of existing code to make it function along with SOCS.

So it wasn't refactored, then.

I asked that refactoring question for a reason, and I would really like it if you took the time to answer it.

 

[Surefoot]

Yeah just to keep the project afloat they have to rewrite everything over and over again... Due to a complete lack of vision and technical knowledge from the management. That's what code refactoring achieves so far, maintaining a kind of statu quo...

(edit) SOCS means they had to rewrite all parts that relied on object entities being present in memory directly, across the whole map. It's not the case now as they are streamed as needed, meaning existing code would break down entirely. (also, having seen some video game code, i can attest it's terribly dirty and hard coded..)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Network OCS Stall Fixes, Projectile Manager, Client to Server Actor Networking Rework, On Demand Physicalizing v2, Particle Lighting v3, Asynchronous Disconnection Refactor, Planet v4, SOCS. Also Lack of significant technical progress to some.

Or, as some might say, a whole load of baloney that doesn't actually mean anything.

 

[StuartGT]

Latest data at the bottom here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...rDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207

From the spreadsheet:

31st Dec 2018:
Pledge counter = $213,256,884
Accounts counter = 2,213,431
Pledge per account average = $96.34

19th Dec 2019:
Pledge counter = $256,695,099
Accounts counter = 2,467,219
Pledge per account average = $104.04

While pledges increased year-on-year by 20.3% ($43,438,215‬), the accounts only increased by 11.5% (253,788‬).

Of the 253,788 new accounts, if all of them (unlikely) were new pledgers buying $60 starter packs (e.g. Aurora/Mustang + Sq42) it would have brought in $15,227,280, a shortfall of $28,210,935.

Ship-sales and farming the current backer-base for more pledges (whale-fracking?) remain the funding lifeblood of the project.

 

[Cotic]

Ship-sales and farming the current backer-base for more pledges (whale-fracking?) remain the funding lifeblood of the project.

So much this.

If money was coming from new backers they would be focusing their marketing on new backers with an increase in free test weeks, lower cost entry ships to buy.
One only has to look at where the focus of their ship marketing is to see where the income demographic lies. Nearly all of it is aimed at the existing backer, big wallet crowd.

 

[Cotic]

Something I saw recently was the comparison of man hours put into SC and Elite seeing they started approximately the same time.
In the last 7 years CIG have put more than double the amount of man hours into their development, considerably more if one includes external contractors.

A bit of a useless fact but was quite interesting to view it in that way.

 

[ZeeWolf]

Something I saw recently was the comparison of man hours put into SC and Elite seeing they started approximately the same time.
In the last 7 years CIG have put more than double the amount of man hours into their development, considerably more if one includes external contractors.

A bit of a useless fact but was quite interesting to view it in that way.

Most of that is just Sandi's additional acting side projects that she puts on expenses.

Boom! I went there

Merry Christmas everyone I found the same xmas card we've been using here for the past three years...

Spoiler

 

[Mole HD]