Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Viajero]

Which isn't what I was talking about in the first place. The engine can do earth sized bodies, that's all this was really about.

No, what you said was:

Plus, scaled down planets were a gameplay decision that becomes apparent when you quantum travel around Crusader.

So far you have shown no evidence of the tiny scales in Stanton to be due to gameplay decisions. You have simply argued it be based on lore. Gameplay and game features (such as planet sizes, geography and all the actual content and gameplay in them) are actually often limited due to technical issues, ressources and competence. Lore on the other hand is not. Lore is additionaly also a very easy excuse to hide technical limitations and incompetence though.

If CIG was technically able to do 1:1 scale bodies they would have done it long ago, claim the success of that fidelity and retcon the lore where needed.

And who are you to proclaim that?

I dont need to, CIG does it for me simply by virtue of them being unable to do it after 10 years.

 

[varonica]

They were. The map showed them inside the star, it's just that CIG never expected anyone to go there and so there are no mechanics of burning up or anything rendering while inside.

View attachment 286386

So if in theory they should have been inside the star and the star wasn't there, then the star isn't 1:6 scale, in fact it appears the star doesn't exist at all except as a light source and sphere drawn on the map. So in actual fact they haven't modeled anything, what you are claiming is a star model is nothing more than some graphics on the system map and it doesn't exist at all?

And as for CIG never expecting anyone to go there, I have spent enough time playing games to know that if something is visible people will try to go there, to claim they didn't expect that is almost laughable.

 

[Ebob]

No, really, don't tell me you are actually arguing that in SC you really are traveling at 0.2c

I am. You are actually travelling at 0.2c. You can test this in the game, hell, you can even see the dots of light the quantum travel makes when you're at Port Olisar and looking across the hyperspace lanes to the planets.

In neither game are you traveling at all

You are in Star Citizen

and instancing has nothing to do with traveling around in the solar system.

It very much does, normal space and supercruise are fundamentally seperated.

You can, if you have the time and fuel, take off from a planet in ED and fly to another planet however far away it is, instancing is to do with players not system assets in the solar system.

You can do that, yes. However your instance will still "sit" at your point of departure, stuff like winging up will be impossible.

The changes in mode aren't leading screens | The change from glide to normal flight isn't an instance change, instance changes happen in the background, you don't even know they are happening most times

They are loading screens, stations wouldn't jarringly pop into existance as you'd traverse from supercruise into normal space. It also wouldn't be stuck in the "glide" mode when your internet connection is interrupted. It's all instanced.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHjZ1A3H_SA&t=6s&ab_channel=Fresio


Further proof you are actually travelling in SC. At the end there's someone filming the whole thing at the exit point and you can see all of them come in as specks of light.

 

[Ebob]

No, what you said was:

Yes I said that, but that's to do with player convenience and not gameplay content on said planets.

So far you have shown no evidence of the tiny scales in Stanton to be due to gameplay decisions. You have simply argued it be based on lore. Gameplay and game features (such as planet sizes, geography and all the actual content and gameplay in them) are actually limited due to technical issues, ressources and competence. Lore on the other hand is not. Lore is additionaly also a very easy excuse to hide technical limitations and incompetence though.

I have shown you evidence of the devs stating the reason, but you write if off as lies. No point in arguing further, anything coming from CIG you'll write off as lies.

If CIG was technically able to do 1:1 scale bodies they would have done it long ago, claim the success of that fidelity and retcon the lore.

How do you know?

I dont need to, CIG does it for me by virtue of simply them being unable to do it after 10 years.

They never said they wanted to do it in the first place.

 

[thistle]

Your made-up space flight is more made-up than my made-up space flight !

 

[varonica]

Further proof you are actually travelling in SC. At the end there's someone filming the whole thing at the exit point and you can see all of them come in as specks of light.

Intrepid players in ED have actually video'd ships flying beside each other in Supercruise and you can do the same when passing stations at 30kps if you are good enough, you have no understanding of how SC works in ED, and the rest of your post was, well, laughable. It also appears the star, Stanton, doesn't actually exist in game, and face it, it doesn't actually need to exist. When on planets and stations all you are seeing is a wraparound skybox with a bright star like object in the location where the star should be, but when you actually try to fly to the star, it's not actually there! So it's not modeled at all, everything seems to be falling apart!

It appears CIG haven't actually modeled a solar system at all.

 

[Ebob]

Intrepid players in ED have actually video'd ships flying beside each other in Supercruise and you can do the same when passing stations at 30kps if you are good enough, you have no understanding of how SC works in ED.

Could you link me to those videos? And please, clear up my misunderstandings about it. As I see it - Supercruise and Normal Instanced space are 2 completely different things, as you can not and will not see any other players in their comet depiction while you're flying in regular space.

and the rest of your post was, well, laughable. It also appears the star, Stanton, doesn't actually exist in game, and face it, it doesn't actually need to exist. When on planets and stations all you are seeing is a wraparound skybox with a bright star like object in the location where the star should be, but when you actually try to fly to the star, it's not actually there! So it's not modeled at all, everything seems to be falling apart!

That's not true. It would seem you have no understanding how SC works. In the D2EA video, they were getting closer and the star was getting larger and brighter. It is modelled, it's just that it didn't render once you phased into it. Same way with the camera suite in ED if you clip inside ship hulls - the ship disappears! This does not mean however that the ship never existed in the first place.

And in Quantum travel you can see the Star move as you move, as in moving behind you or ahead of you depending on where you're travelling.

It appears CIG haven't actually modeled a solar system at all.

Apart from the fact that it has lagrange points & clouds and asteroid belts scattered about the system - things ED with it's "realistic" depiction of a Star System does not have. CIG never claimed to be astronomically accurate either, while it's one of the marketing points for ED. If you want actual realism in solar system i'd suggest space engine.

I honestly don't know how this discussion has come to be about realism when it started with engine capabilities.

 

[Viajero]

Yes I said that, but that's to do with player convenience and not gameplay content on said planets.

Lore is not for player convenience. Lore is a very convenient way to excuse technical limitations and incompetence though.

Scale 1:1 scale is actual content, and where gameplay happens. You stated scale down planets were a gameplay based decision, so far you have not shown any. Only lore based ones.

I have shown you evidence of the devs stating the reason, but you write if off as lies. No point in arguing further, anything coming from CIG you'll write off as lies.

You have stated a lore based reason, not a gameplay based one as you originally claimed.

If CIG was technically able to do 1:1 scale bodies they would have done it long ago, claim the success of that fidelity and retcon the lore where needed.

How do you know?

Because they have not been able to implement it for 10 years.

They never said they wanted to do it in the first place.

I suspect you are being a bit disingenuous here. This is CIG we are talking about, the self proclaimed flagship of fidelity in space simulation. Why do you think such a company wouldn´t implement 1:1 scales if it could? Lore?

 

[Ebob]

Scale 1:1 scale is actual content, and where gameplay happens.

Purely terrain is not content - it's an area for gameplay content to reside in.

You have stated a lore based reason, not a gameplay based one as you originally claimed.

I'll quote it again:

“In a fully realised system like Stanton you should be able to spend hundreds of hours – for a normal game that’s a lot.
Quantum travel is at 0.2c so the systems are scaled down for fun reasons – the tech can handle 1:1 scale but the travel times become too long.
Systems are 1:10 distance between planets because it felt right about time investment with travelling.
Planets are 1:4 or 1:6 for the same reason – time to travel and get down from orbit.
With those scales, it takes 40 mins in quantum travel to travel from one end of the system to the other.
It has to be interesting however, for haulers it can’t be instant travel otherwise it would be a way to farm money. But there will be risk and danger to keep it interesting.
There will be costs and maintenance involved – while travelling you might need to replace a fuse.”

from: http://imperialnews.network/2016/08/gamescom-day-4-coverage/

Scaling: 1:6 ratio for main planets
CR: Hurston is about 2.000 kilometres of diameter, so it's about earth size based on our ratio, we're doing one (to) six (1:6) for the main planets and that's just for traversal reasons, because it already takes quite a while to fly not even that far of distance. [The new flight model]...even more enforces it, (...) atmosphere the thicker it is, the harder is for you to go fast. We can get higher up you'll be able to go faster. (...) [1:6] is a nice balance between having the size and scale and been allowing you to traverse it in reasonable times.
CR: This mission can spawn around different locations around Hurston. TP: And also have multiple branches

from: https://starcitizen.tools/CitizenCon_2018_Keynote

If CIG was technically able to do 1:1 scale bodies they would have done it long ago, claim the success of that fidelity and retcon the lore where needed.
Because they have not been able to implement it for 10 years.
I suspect you are being a bit disingenuous here. This is CIG we are talking about here, the self proclaimed flagship of fidelity in space simulation. Why such a company wouldn´t implement 1:1 scale if it could, especially to beat its main competitor at its own game?

Again you're not providing any facts or intentions of CIG wanting to do 1:1, merely basing things off of your own assumptions.

 

[VR Golgot]

Supercruise and Normal Instanced space are 2 completely different things, as you can not and will not see any other players in their comet depiction while you're flying in regular space.

This bit is true. (But it's also what's going to happen to SC when 'Static Server Meshing' gets introduced )

Apart from the fact that it has lagrange points & clouds and asteroid belts scattered about the system - things ED with it's "realistic" depiction of a Star System does not have. CIG never claimed to be astronomically accurate either, while it's one of the marketing points for ED. If you want actual realism in solar system i'd suggest space engine.

Lol. As much as I don't care about much of the realism stuff personally (or the ED/SC tribalism either for that matter):

• ED has lagrange points in suitable places (with volumetric dust clouds in some of them as it goes). And some basic asteroid belts . (They slow you down in Supercruise etc, you can drop out at them. They don't serve much purpose though).
• (SC's lagrange points are kinda daft as there are no orbital mechanics. So you just get stable points between stable masses etc. Bit simple )

I honestly don't know how this discussion has come to be about realism when it started with engine capabilities.

I think the gates flew open when you started using lore and non-1:1 things as proofs

 

[Dooguk]

Luke Pressley Lead Star Citizen Live Designer

Luke Pressley (LP): So when we started building out Stanton proper we realised that the first thing we had to do was agree on scale. There are maybe technical limitations on how big you can build planets. Maybe Art would like the moons to look more epic or the sun to look … ‘cause you’ve got to remember that the star is Art’s primary light for the entire level.

But it can’t just be an art piece because you’ve got to fly around it. It has to be consistent across the levels. The way we did that was by recreating our solar system using all the various scales.

So we ended up with planets and the distances between everything being one tenth scale and moons being one sixth scale - so moons are bigger - and suns themselves are just 1:1 scale. So when you’re, say, on Mercury you’ll feel like you’re right next to the sun.

So what you’ll notice in the Stanton system is that the sun is maybe twice as big as it was before. Crusader’s shrunken a little bit. But ... what you really notice is … with all the new stuff, like the first time that you’ve seen a planet and you’re seeing the sun through an actual thick atmosphere. You’re seeing it’s moons orbiting it. These things, hopefully, appearing a little sci-fi - Star Wars - scale as they go round rather than the little dot that they might - should - be.

Emboldening by me

 

[VR Golgot]

Emboldening by me

Nice one. Source here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvHQRyxHnW8&t=360s

 

[Ebob]

Lol. As much as I don't care about much of the realism stuff personally (or the ED/SC tribalism either for that matter):

• ED has lagrange points in suitable places (with volumetric dust clouds in some of them as it goes). And some basic asteroid belts . (They slow you down in Supercruise etc, you can drop out at them. They don't serve much purpose though).

Well, it has lagrange clouds in the form of Notable Stellar Phenomena. Lagrange points are not marked in any way whatsoever, and said lagrange clouds should be a much more common sight if we go after the definition of what a lagrange point is.

I wouldn't call those asteroid occurences "belts". They don't have the shape of a belt and aren't in every system. Stars & Planets do have rings, though, but nothing like what SC is depicting.

I think the gates flew open when you started using lore and non-1:1 things as proofs

But that doesn't have anything to do with realism

 

[Ebob]

Emboldening by me

Does he go on to say what those "maybe technical limitations" hold? Twice the size of Earth? Half the size? Expressed it in a pretty vague manner. Because really, there are technical limitations on how big you can make anything in a game. So there being an upper limit to planet size until things break doesn't surprise at all.

 

[Dooguk]

So when you’re, say, on Mercury you’ll feel like you’re right next to the sun.

See the way they get the backers all excited. When will the Solar System be in the game?

 

[Ebob]

See the way they get the backers all excited. When will the Solar System be in the game?

When it's done

 

[Dooguk]

Does he go on to say what those "maybe technical limitations" hold? Twice the size of Earth? Half the size? Expressed it in a pretty vague manner. Because really, there are technical limitations on how big you can make anything in a game. So there being an upper limit to planet size until things break doesn't surprise at all.

Crappy Cryengine limitations I suppose.

 

[varonica]

And in Quantum travel you can see the Star move as you move, as in moving behind you or ahead of you depending on where you're travelling.

Umm, you do understand how rendered sky boxes work right? I mean we aren't talking about any sort of amazing technology here, this is stuff that's been around for years. To be honest I really don't care how SC does it, just as I don't really care how NMS does it, as long as they can make a decent game out of it. 1:10 or 1:6 scale, who really cares, that's hardly the point, if they make a good game out of it that's fine. I may never play it but that's immaterial.

Now coming here and claiming it's better than ED because you are actually traveling at 0.2c while in Ed you aren't, when you can actually fly loops around planets and stars and through the gaps in gas giant rings in ED while in Supercruise or regular space, that's a laughable argument. That's stuff that's just not possible at all in SC and probably never will be, don't you think that comes off as a bit arrogant? Game play reasons, lore reasons, technical limitations on the game engine, the only ones who actually know that are the programmers at CIG themselves.

Did the decision to create the lore that quantum travel can only go 0.2c come before or after the decision to make the planets at a small scale? I would suggest you don't really know, you only know what they have chosen to tell you. Does the game engine they are using limit the scale they can create objects? The fact is drawing a large bright circle on a sky box does not a star model make. Dropping out to real space close to the the star surface might have helped the argument but they couldn't do that, why not? If they could see the star growing as the approached it why didn't they choose to drop out close to the surface of the star instead of deciding to pass right through it? I mean surely they must have seen the huge bright ball of hot gas getting closer and closer! But that didn't happen, I watched the video, they entered the space, supposedly inside the star according to you, without actually passing through that huge glowing wall of light that must mark the outer surface of the star if it was actually modeled. You claim other players can see ships flying in quantum drive, but you can't see the approaching star?

These position don't hold water, it appears the star hasn't actually been modeled in any sort of interactable way, it appears to be all, as they say, smoke and mirrors. I have nothing against that, if it looks good and comes in a good game that's ok, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

[Darkfyre99]

They were. The map showed them inside the star, it's just that CIG never expected anyone to go there and so there are no mechanics of burning up or anything rendering while inside.

View attachment 286386

That map clearly exaggerates the size of objects for the sake of legibility.

 

[Viajero]

Purely terrain is not content - it's an area for gameplay content to reside in.

Well, that is your opinion which is fine. Some other players actually consider a properly 1:1 simulated galaxy based in astrophysics principles worth exploring in and on itself.

Either way CIG still seems unable to do 1:1.

I'll quote it again:

Well, it was you who claimed that scaled down planets was based on a gameplay decision. So far you have just shown lore.

Again you're not providing any facts or intentions of CIG wanting to do 1:1, merely basing things off of your own assumptions.

Try at least to answer this: Why do you think a company such as CIG, the self proclaimed flagship of space simulation fidelity, wouldn´t implement 1:1 scales if it could? Lore?