Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
WotGTheAgent said:
There's been tons of positive leaks (by me even!). Not my fault they ain't in the game or ain't working right.
Click to expand...

We were discussing a positive one just the other day...

VR Golgot said:
You were getting some intriguing stuff around 3.0 time ;)

March 2017

hello

What we are rolling out now is a complete rewrite of core and branched systems. It has nothing to do with Lumberyard integration. Early 2016 the decision was made to scrap almost our entire codebase and start anew. Whilst this means years of potential new coding, our animation and art teams have continued to refine and refactor. What they produce now is purely and simply momentous. No other studio has the capacity for such amazing work. There has been thousands of custom animations and facial expressions that rival the top Hollywood computer graphics companies.

Then what is heading back to redesign? I used refactor the correct way, before I get crap for that. Everything you see currently is gone. 2.6 no longer exists. The beta we are getting out this year, and I mean this year, is a total rebuild -- not refactor, har -- of code. Flight models, first person feel, networking, persistence, items; all of what's in 2.6 is completely gone.

The foundations and creative tools for new content are in place are nearly complete. They are decades ahead of what other companies have, even AAA studios. Chris bet big on big ideas and now our entire team is starting to see that investment pay off.

I'm not afraid to say 2020 or later is release. I'm unafraid because our backers are unafraid; every single one of them continue to walk-the-walk and not just talk-the-talk. Chris made the right call to wipe out what was previously in place. Things were too fractured; now everything is under one house, one rule, one idea. No more outsourcing. No more wondering what company added or subtracted.

Beta is a turning point for the entire project. I won't comment on Amazon. The air here is different. The feel of the company is different. Progress, rapid progress, is being made now, more than ever before. Designers are putting in systems and testing them within the same week. If I can sum up in one word what we all feel: joy. To not only be a part of this project but to truly go where no one has gone before.

You don't post positives, not from what I've seen. Maybe this will be different.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Worth a million dollars that :)
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
WhiteHaulerMan said:
Not wanting to get lost in a pointless argument, but wasnt the '1 capital ship per server' thing in relation to the Bengal, rather than ones players could actually own?
Click to expand...

It's a claim from one of the leaks. IE that the current 'server meshing' solutions would struggle to support multiple capital ships (due to player count limits etc).

(The leak may stem from the same source who predicted Turbulent's move into Server Meshing duties accurately, and so be more than just an amusing bit of whimsy ;))

Guess time will tell ¯\(ツ)/¯
 
Last edited:

WhiteHaulerMan

WhiteHaulerMan
VR Golgot said:
It's a claim from one of the leaks. IE that the current 'server meshing' solutions would struggle to support multiple capital ships (due to player count limits etc).

(The leak may stem from the same source who predicted Turbulent's move into Server Meshing duties accurately, and so be more than just an amusing bit of whimsy ;))

Guess time will tell ¯\(ツ)/¯
Click to expand...

Nah I get that, I was just having one of my moments where I wasn't 100%, and thought someone here would have been able to confirm, because I'm like 95% adamant early on the talk was '1 Bengal per server' to encourage player groups to fight for them.

In other news, 60 player battle.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3qaRXZqrO8
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
WhiteHaulerMan said:
Nah I get that, I was just having one of my moments where I wasn't 100%, and thought someone here would have been able to confirm, because I'm like 95% adamant early on the talk was '1 Bengal per server' to encourage player groups to fight for them.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok. Yeah does ring a bell.

(Although I don't remember any talk of fighting around them / over them. Just the idea that they wouldn't be player owned.)

(Would dig into it, but I'm too busy making a vid about CIG's scurrilous modularity claims ;))
 

WhiteHaulerMan

WhiteHaulerMan
VR Golgot said:
Ahh ok. Yeah does ring a bell.

(Although I don't remember any talk of fighting around them / over them. Just the idea that they wouldn't be player owned.)

(Would dig into it, but I'm too busy making a vid about CIG's scurrilous modularity claims ;))
Click to expand...
My experience of this sort of stuff is not the best (mostly ArmA mission making and mod config writing) but if it was me approaching it I'd build all the variations as individual models and then throw a 'modularity' interface over the top to make to give the player the impression it was modular. Its how we used to do aircraft weapon loadouts in the OFP days. Simple, easy, robust approach.

Drawback is though you then have a bigger file size because of the number of models in-game than you would if it was truly modular.
 

VR Golgot

VR Golgot
WhiteHaulerMan said:
My experience of this sort of stuff is not the best (mostly ArmA mission making and mod config writing) but if it was me approaching it I'd build all the variations as individual models and then throw a 'modularity' interface over the top to make to give the player the impression it was modular. Its how we used to do aircraft weapon loadouts in the OFP days. Simple, easy, robust approach.

Drawback is though you then have a bigger file size because of the number of models in-game than you would if it was truly modular.
Click to expand...

Would that work with room scale modules like these? (Like a hospital vs a drop ship bay or whatever).

Their current dilemmas are primarily due to existing tech debt with those systems:
  • The object containers were never designed to be deleted / removed / changed at run-time. (And the engineers that built them are busy with server meshing currently etc)
  • Object containers can't 'talk' to the 'pipe system' in the ship, to connect the room and items to energy / oxygen systems etc.
  • Some items, like missile launchers etc, were coded as part of the ship's hull, not the room they were in. So they can swap out the modular rooms, but the missile launcher would remain in place.
  • And... They've sold a helluva a lot of crazy variants of these things ;). (Caterpillar modules which connect both to external and internal spaces. Enormous ones like the Endeavour's particle accelerator to modify other modules... Stuff like that).

The sourer fruit of running an alpha as a service ¯\(ツ)/¯

The other side of the problem probably just stems from Chris 'take the physicalised long-road to everywhere' Roberts himself ;)

(They're probably thankful he's stopped asking for the unused modules to be displayed in a hangar somewhere... Because naturally he totally did that ;))
 
Last edited:

thistle

T
StuartGT said:
Very likely gifts from viewers, other backers, simps, or whatever.
Click to expand...
I was watching DeadlySlob, he jumps in to SC every patch for a day so, then goes back to Tarkov. A SC backer in his chat wanted to send him lots of cash and he had a little mini-rage about how CIG need to stop that, or have a way to switch it off. Basically thanks, very kind, but get lost. (edit - in a very polite Canadian way of course!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom