So now they not only allegedly make two games but code new engines, too. Not just improve what they have - no, they write completely new versions. Your stories are still pretty fantastic - the point being it's derived rather from fantasy than magnificience.
Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- star citizen
?
That's what they do !
What do you think, for instance, about adding a new renderer+Vulkan on an engine working on DX9 and a decade old renderer ? It's not a major change ? It's not something you can label as a "new version of the engine" ?
Isn't that what most devs do when they develop on some 3rd party engine? They customise it for their in-house needs. But not update the whole fricken engine to new release level, like you insinuate. Because they are game devs - not game engine makers. The point using an engine is to make games. If you can't do it with the engine you picked - you picked the wrong engine.
Beside that I don't think they have the quality of making game engines. They barely qualify as game devs - competent ones would have identified the need for 64bit beforehand. CIG shoehorned something in and now two pixels are in the same place at the wrong time and everything goes wonky.
No, they don't try to change DX9 by Vulkan while replacing the renderer. Those sort of things are heavily tied to the core engine, it's absolutely not "customisation" but a massive task.
Can you tell me exactly which engines were able to handle 64bits positioning in 2014 ? I am all ears !
So you're saying they had no engine to make the game with, but promised to deliver one over the next two years anyway. That is fraud.
CIG have said they have done, not will do but have done, tons of things over the years that no one has ever seen, not even in the special journalist in the office builds not for public view.
Of course this time when they say they'll migrate to Vulkan it will be different than the time they said they will migrate to DX11, then DX12, or support Mantle because this time they mean it. Like suuuure, go on then, buy more space ships to support "development". Right after you buy this bridge I'm coincidentally selling.
Of course this time when they say they'll migrate to Vulkan it will be different than the time they said they will migrate to DX11, then DX12, or support Mantle because this time they mean it. Like suuuure, go on then, buy more space ships to support "development". Right after you buy this bridge I'm coincidentally selling.
???
The 64 bits positioning was not needed and not part of the initial project of 2012.
So the scope extension made it impossible to deliver what they promised.
In a fit of madness, after I finally got bored with Surviving Mars, I decided to return to “Fallout Shelter” as my “idle” game… on survival difficulty. Getting it to the point where it’s “stable” has taken up a lot of my “free” time while on break or lunch, so I haven’t visited this thread for four days.
I’m given to understand that my temporary silence, while pursuing other distractions, means I think Star Citizen is good now.
I’m given to understand that my temporary silence, while pursuing other distractions, means I think Star Citizen is good now.
The problem with CIG's approach they have to spend a lot of effort in adding things to the engine that game engine makers do for other developers who license their products from game engine makers and let the game engine makers worry about that side of things. They of course, pay for this privilege.
"StarEngine" is probably so customized at this point, they probably can't accept updates from Amazon any more, it would probably break CIG's engine.
I'm not saying this approach can't work. But it does require a lot of effort if you have any sort of complex game, and want to do even more complex things with it, and i hope even LA won't deny, CIG want to do some really crazy and complex things with their engine.
But perhaps this brings us around to the real issue. Custom engine, Unreal, CryEngine, whatever. It really doesn't matter, because they would still have to implement a lot of what they want to do themselves, unless the game engine developer also adds those things natively to the engine.
And all these discussions do highlight the fact that CIG still have a boatload of work they need to do on the engine anyway, and anyone dreaming that SC (and maybe SQ42) is being released in current_year+2 is probably dreaming.
"StarEngine" is probably so customized at this point, they probably can't accept updates from Amazon any more, it would probably break CIG's engine.
I'm not saying this approach can't work. But it does require a lot of effort if you have any sort of complex game, and want to do even more complex things with it, and i hope even LA won't deny, CIG want to do some really crazy and complex things with their engine.
But perhaps this brings us around to the real issue. Custom engine, Unreal, CryEngine, whatever. It really doesn't matter, because they would still have to implement a lot of what they want to do themselves, unless the game engine developer also adds those things natively to the engine.
And all these discussions do highlight the fact that CIG still have a boatload of work they need to do on the engine anyway, and anyone dreaming that SC (and maybe SQ42) is being released in current_year+2 is probably dreaming.
Quite a lot of them.. But for SC they should have gone with a custom engine from the start. And a fixed scope but that's another issue.
Vulkan is Mantle with another name. Vulkan and DX12 are so similar that a change from one to another during development is doable.
There is nothing incoherent here, only strategic decisions.
The sole fact here is that CIG work on it since several years.
After a little hiatus due to 'account issues' Cough
I'm still not much further forwards with resolving my throttle issues with my thrustmaster T1600M fcs hotas.
It seems to be acting as button/switch in SC (0% or 100% throttle). The hotas works fine in Windows with the Joy.cpl (and also in ED). However, in the TARGET software, the throttle is seen, in so far as the axis/buttons are concerned but no inputs are seen from those axis or buttons.
I've done a driver update with Driver Easy (19 drivers updated) and I've swopped the USB ports every-which-way but with no joy there either.
If anyone has any other suggestions - Please Do!
I'm still not much further forwards with resolving my throttle issues with my thrustmaster T1600M fcs hotas.
It seems to be acting as button/switch in SC (0% or 100% throttle). The hotas works fine in Windows with the Joy.cpl (and also in ED). However, in the TARGET software, the throttle is seen, in so far as the axis/buttons are concerned but no inputs are seen from those axis or buttons.
I've done a driver update with Driver Easy (19 drivers updated) and I've swopped the USB ports every-which-way but with no joy there either.
If anyone has any other suggestions - Please Do!
I'm not sure how you can make that claim. Despite not having plans for fully landable planets at that time, the multiplayer universe as touted even in 2012 was meant to be a big open world, and space would still be big enough to require 64 bit positioning. I don't recall anyone from CIG at that time saying space was going to be tiny and made up of small discrete regions.
In other words: They just can't make it work.
Ah, what a pain. The closest i've had to this was in ED where i stupidly bound the axis to the wrong controls, to the digital axis. So it was either 1 or 0. If CIG doesn't differentiate between digital and analogue axis, then you're boned. But i can't imagine that being the case, others use sticks without issue AFAIK.
Why use the conditional when it has been officially announced by CIG since a long time ago ?