Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

[Ed02350]

August of 2020:

On 4.0:

View attachment 405404

Roads are challenging? what's the context of this?

 

[govny]

however the UE VR injector really shows how easy it has been to inject really good VR support into games on unreal engine and that is without access to the source code.

that is because UE has a native VR support. Infact you cant inject VR with game that use UE version before 4.8 that desn't have native VR support.

 

[Phlegm]

It's a shame because the movie had potential. But Disney was still stuck in it's sweetish kiddie-style format so it had no punch. Miyazaki's anime films proved you could have kid-friendly creations with an edge but it took Disney decades to realize it.

It took decades for them to REMEMBER that. Bambi, Pinocchio and the other early features all had scary stuff in them, and The Rescuers is pretty rough stuff.

 

[ECity]

Roads are challenging? what's the context of this?

CIG has mentioned for years the idea that there will be roads between settlements on planets.

 

[VR Golgot]

Benoit 'PES is behind us' Beausejour is at it again...

TLDR:

- Will the performance boost provided by server meshing (static and dynamic) help speed up feature development and give us the stability we're looking for (moving NPCs/Recruiting NPCs/Increasing the number of NPCs)?

BB:
Yes, of course it will.

- Is Server mesh dynamic easily achievable in terms of implementation time, compared with static mesh? Are you confident that this one will come quickly?

BB:
Of course, static server meshing included ALL the technology development...

There are a lot of elements that were badly done at the time, or done unnecessarily, that need to be dealt with. And we're dealing with that right now...

We're trying to make sure we have this same flexibility in 4.0 (internally we call it “almost-dynamic” for a lack of better words haha)...

- What in-game technology are you most looking forward to, apart from server dynamic meshing?

BB:
Oh. Base building, big time. [...] we want to make sure that if you claim a territory and build a base on it, that it's available on all the shards.

That's a pretty major challenge, but it's really interesting

- Question about the rotation of planets and whether at some point we're going to have elliptical systems, do you have any answers to that?

BB:
Actually, we already have the systems in place, but they're disabled for the moment, because we've discovered a lot of effects through that.

- You managed to propose 4.0 to the Evocati before CitizenCon, so congratulations on that, but aren't you disappointed that it's only happening now, whereas your goal for 2023 was a summer 2024 release?

BB:
...it's really just a first step.

Spoiler: full text

Interview with Benoît Beauséjour at CitCon 2954 (Server meshing / Network) self.starcitizen
submitted an hour ago * by Vangelys
I'm making this publication following this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1g9gc4o/comment/lt6e4b8

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1g9gc4o/comment/lt6e4b8/?context=3
which mentioned an interview with Benoît Beauséjour (Chief Technology Officer at CIG) on a French stream.
Source of the interview:

Source: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2280687172?t=4h56m3s

I've translated the entire interview from the language of Moliere into that of Shakespeare, for those who are interested.
Enjoy!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// Q1:
- Will the performance boost provided by server meshing (static and dynamic) help speed up feature development and give us the stability we're looking for (moving NPCs/Recruiting NPCs/Increasing the number of NPCs)?

BB:
Yes, of course it will. The key with server meshing is that each server will simulate fewer elements. So we already know that when fewer elements are simulated, the server's performance is much better. Sure, it'll speed up development, but it'll also speed up the time it takes us to deliver the patch, yes. At a time when we're getting ready for 3.24 or 3.24.2 or 3.24.1, bringing the patch live is a lot of effort. That's when you discover new things...!
When players arrive on the server, they always do something extra haha. The developers have a way of testing that's more diagonal, right? Players go deeper. So it's going to help us with that, it's going to give us more buffer on performance, which is going to allow us to go a bit faster. And with more subdivision, it also gives us a degree of control we didn't have before.

// Q2:
- Is Server mesh dynamic easily achievable in terms of implementation time, compared with static mesh? Are you confident that this one will come quickly?

BB:
Of course, static server meshing included ALL the technology development. So the low-level code that deals with the network: transmission of packets that are reliable vs. those that are unreliable, all this technology has been rewritten for server meshing. Then the concept of authority, where we're in the process of ironing out all the bugs linked to the transfer of authority, i.e. when you change servers, all the game components must respond to this change of authority.
There are a lot of elements that were badly done at the time, or done unnecessarily, that need to be dealt with. And we're dealing with that right now.
To continue on the subject of server meshing, we're talking about massive transfers of authority. Let's take a large Microtech mesh in its entirety, and decide to bring in a server to look after New Babagge alone. So here we're doing mass transfers of authority that will bring all the transfers to the new server, part of the dynamic meshing development, plus the reconciliation loop that will look at where the players are, where there's a need for servers, and which will distribute the server needs to best serve the players.
That means not only grouping them together, because there's a cost dimension involved. Of course, if we could give each player a server, we'd do it haha!
To sum up, there's less development to be done with dynamic than with static. I hope we'll be able to do this quickly, but already in 4.0 there are certain elements of dynamic meshing that are implemented in the code. That means the ability to switch servers on and off depending on whether there are players or not.
We're trying to make sure we have this same flexibility in 4.0 (internally we call it “almost-dynamic” for a lack of better words haha). But here we are, trying to bring you as much of the dynamic mode as possible in the PU version. But i'm not worried, we're on the right track at the moment.

//Q3:
- What in-game technology are you most looking forward to, apart from server dynamic meshing?

BB:
Oh. Base building, big time. Everything that's done in the background of base building, everything that's related to manufacturing, there's a lot of new databases, a lot of new services, new schema transfer and so on. Because we want to make sure that if you claim a territory and build a base on it, that it's available on all the shards.
That's a pretty major challenge, but it's really interesting, it's going to change the game a lot, along with crafting. It's going to bring a universe where it's the players who make the economy, and I really think that's the direction the game needs to go in, and we're well on the way to doing that, and that's what I'm most excited about.

// Q4:
- Will the planet systems be placed on a single megamap, or will they be on separate game maps, each with its own skybox?

BB:
In fact, each system is a part of the map. We still have the mega map concept, but we have a branch principle, and each solar system has its own branch. What we call the root of the universe, you really can't have players there, they're always in the star systems. In fact, they're not quite maps as such, but it's the same concept, but it's a big data-set.
So as more systems are added, it's still just the streaming system that comes into play.

// Q5:
- When you jump into a wormhole, do you move physically via coordinates, or is it more of a teleportation system?

BB:
Actually, that's what's really cool. The way the jumps are made, when you enter the jump there's a zone, imagine it's a big ship or a big train.
When the passage opens, all the players who enter the wormhole become part of this train, and as the players move through the passage, the zone moves with you. And the moment you fall into Pyro's authority, into its branch, that's when the zone and the players have arrived in Pyro, then the train/zone is destroyed. Think of it as a big bus haha. So it's really a change of coordinates: one universe.

// Q6:
- Question about the rotation of planets and whether at some point we're going to have elliptical systems, do you have any answers to that?

BB:
Actually, we already have the systems in place, but they're disabled for the moment, because we've discovered a lot of effects through that. It's something we're going to try to bring back, but it's not the priority at the moment, our focus is on bringing gameplay into the game.
But it does have an effect, i.e. if we implement this principle, it will have an impact on the systems for changing zones, etc.
First and foremost, we need to have something stable and solid at the moment before we consider moving on to a new system rule like this.

// Q7:
- You managed to propose 4.0 to the Evocati before CitizenCon, so congratulations on that, but aren't you disappointed that it's only happening now, whereas your goal for 2023 was a summer 2024 release?

BB:
Yes. Of course we're not super happy with the timing, which is to say that 3.24 was a really difficult patch. It brought a lot of features (persistant personal hangars, freight elevator systems...) that really touched on a lot of systems already in place that were problematic.
I talked a bit about this on SC-Live last time: there are really 3 systems in the game that are problematic. The traffic control system, the ASOP terminal system, and the transit system (we all know what's wrong with that). Because they're a bit old, we try to update them, but we never have priority over them.
And then server meshing adds to the complexity, so 3.24 really slowed us down. Then in March, during performance testing, we identified that we had to make a detour to install the RMQ system, which gives us better networking performance.
So we're not entirely happy with our timing, but we're happy with the result in the sense that we can see that the technology is functional, and it's really just a first step. As I said in my last action reports, we're not chasing numbers, we're chasing a real quality of gaming experience. We'll go with what's most stable and functional.

// Q8:
- A more personal question, does Benoit Beauséjour play the game regularly? When was the last time you played the game?

BB:
Well, I play every day or so haha, yes yes yes, I'm a big player! I love it, I made the Simpit at CIG, so at home I've got joysticks, paddles, the big kit, I'm a Sim Games fan in general.

// Q9:
- It was a tough question for John Crewe because all his ships are his babies, but do you have a favorite ship, and if so, which one?

BB:
Yeah, the Hornet. I always want to play the Hornet. The Hornet MKII is my workhorse. That's for the single seat fighter, in the medium fighters: the Hurricane, I love that ship. With a good gunner the Hurricane: Simply unstoppable. And in the big ones... Exploration is Carrack 100%. Back when I heard about Carrack, I was really crazy about it, a real fanboy haha! And as for Cargo, I have a little thing with Drake, so it's definitely Caterpillar.

// Q10:
- We saw in the pannels that they talked about Castra, we saw Nyx too, with the Base Building coming up, of all the systems which one would you like to settle in?

BB:
Nyx. To me, it has to be unlawful, because i like the action. So for me, it has to be unlawful and... it's gonna be hot.

 

[Ed02350]

CIG has mentioned for years the idea that there will be roads between settlements on planets.

Oh, that's it? I thought it was another something special.
Difficult indeed, for CIG.

 

[VR Golgot]

Archered meme...

 

[Viajero]

Btw, regarding the 5 systems on 1.0 launch, the game point of sale description still states 100 systems at launch.

Either CIG updates that or it means false advertising.

Given that SC has been sold for over a decade with that stated at point of sale, if CIG was a decent company and irrespective of ToS, it should be explicitely offering the possibility of refunds to anyone interested due to the significant change of scope, and letting them decide. Staying silent over this is a really disgusting abuse of its client base.

Not that 5 vs 100 planets at launch is the only reason a refund should be offered, but now that CIG has officially confirmed 100 will not happen it is probably among the more clear cut ones.