Game Discussions Star Citizen Discussion Thread v12

So it is unreasonable to assume that an engine CIG has been using since their inception, do all of their live gamedev sessions with and bought a perpetual license for just to not use it because their whole engine team they hired to make it more usable and convenient for what they do is apparently incompetent at their job? Seems a little outlandish to me, lol.
They've generated bullshots and faked footage since day 1. And "Star" Engine isnt fit for the job. The New World problems neatly underline this.
 
So it is unreasonable to assume that an engine CIG has been using since their inception, do all of their live gamedev sessions with and bought a perpetual license for just to not use it because their whole engine team they hired to make it more usable and convenient for what they do is apparently incompetent at their job? Seems a little outlandish to me, lol.
Especially when you consider all the tricks that can be applied to make things look a lot better when rendering video “in engine.”
 
They've generated bullshots and faked footage since day 1. And "Star" Engine isnt fit for the job. The New World problems neatly underline this.
Can you give me some examples of this actually "faked" footage? That wasn't just something they dabbled with and then decided to scrap it, but from conception on something that wasnt gonna make it into the game. Its crazy to assume they switched over to UE 5 just because in some video textures look a bit "softer".
And "Star" Engine isnt fit for the job.
No engine is better fit for the job. UE 5 isnt fit for the job either. They've developed so much proprietary tech for Star Engine that its just plain stupid to move to another Engine now. Star Engine might not be fit for the job all too well, but it sure is more sensical to use it over something like UE5. And really, why are you even saying its "not fit for the job"?

Apart from the performance issues and server problems (with things like Server Meshing being completely unrelated to the engine) they've demonstrated that Star Engine can do their ship interiors, seamless transitions, cities and Starports, basic game features that are Integral to SC. And Star Engine manages to pull that off.
 
is apparently incompetent at their job?

It's not about suggesting incompetence per se. There'd be nothing that outlandish about using UE for mock ups etc, if Cryengine or Lumberyard tools were more unwieldy for the job.

The idea mainly stems from gossipy leaks like the following:

If Agent's leaks in this area are correct then UE4 is already in play for SQ42. If not in an entirely efficient manner:

  • hearing (again) that UE4 is being utilized for cutscenes
  • "We're doing [in-game cinematics] twice. We create a simple preview using [UE4 Blueprint/Sequencer] for approval, since it's faster. After sign-off, we create them [into Lumberyard using Track View, a CryEngine tool]."
  • supposedly this creates less work, as approval/rough cut cutscenes take "a very, very long time to sculpt" in LY/CE
  • post-approval cutscenes were constantly changed, even after sign-off
  • these highly-detailed, complex and polished final cuts went back to planning, sometimes being completely rewritten as other chapters of the game changed
  • "thousands and thousands of man-hours" continue to be lost to this, according to 3rd party animator

(Although there have been fun asides like Unreal experience being a desired additional skill for job adverts too).

If it were the case in this situation it would just point to time being squandered in painting pretty demos for backers, rather than snagging rougher examples from dev builds etc.
 
Last edited:
(Although there have been fun asides like Unreal experience being a desired additional skill for job adverts too).
Odd, clicking on that link now it doesnt mention Unreal anywhere, just experience in working with Game Engines
If it were the case in this situation it would kinda point more to time being squandered in painting pretty demos for backers, rather than snagging rougher examples from dev builds etc.
But why would they use unreal for pretty demos? Cry Engine also has amazing graphics.
 
Odd, clicking on that link now it doesnt mention Unreal anywhere, just experience in working with Game Engines

Intriguing. It definitely did. (You can see the screen grab ;))

Possibly it was just default text and they massaged it. (And/or possibly they didn’t like the stir it caused at the time ¯\(ツ)/¯ )

But why would they use unreal for pretty demos? Cry Engine also has amazing graphics.

For the reasons given I’d imagine. Faster to mock up, due to it being much more cumbersome in Cry & Lumberyard ¯\(ツ)/¯
 
For the reasons given I’d imagine. Faster to mock up, due to it being much more cumbersome in Cry & Lumberyard ¯\(ツ)/¯
Odd, doesn't seem like it'd be more cumbersome to use.

Source: https://youtu.be/47byWU9ZBk0?t=676


They had a dev stream where they built props for the game, and they even have a tool where they can just drag the unfinished model they just saved into the CryEngine scene and look at it in engine in a matter of seconds. Doesn't seem all that difficult.
 
Well, IIRC, their single investor got about 10% of the dividends paid for making a “profit”. Everything else went to the Roberts Clan.
Nice to see they're mkaing a profit,,,, after all that hard work and bloated success, they deserve it, along with a nice holiday.

Pity to see that detractors like Mole still polluting the 'verse with his FUD. What a very bad man he is! Tut tut!!!

I may not actually believe what I wrote above.
 
Nice to see they're mkaing a profit,,,, after all that hard work and bloated success, they deserve it, along with a nice holiday.

Pity to see that detractors like Mole still polluting the 'verse with his FUD. What a very bad man he is! Tut tut!!!

I may not actually believe what I wrote above.
Why so hostile? I found it kinda endearing the story about the yearly pup training. Other kids dream for years of a dog - some never have one. Mole had one every year. Makes me only a bit envious.
 
So it is unreasonable to assume that an engine CIG has been using since their inception, do all of their live gamedev sessions with and bought a perpetual license for just to not use it because their whole engine team they hired to make it more usable and convenient for what they do is apparently incompetent at their job? Seems a little outlandish to me, lol.

CIG have hired people specifically with Unreal experience.

While tinfoilhattery, it could be possible that despite years of working on CryEngine, it might be still quicker for them to cobble together marketing videos in Unreal.

Intrepid3D, a big fan of SC and someone with experience of both engines has said that a ToW video looked like it was in Unreal, not CryEngine.

But without access to the source, of course all we can do is stupidly speculate. And laugh at the possibility.
 
Odd, doesn't seem like it'd be more cumbersome to use.

Source: https://youtu.be/47byWU9ZBk0?t=676

They had a dev stream where they built props for the game, and they even have a tool where they can just drag the unfinished model they just saved into the CryEngine scene and look at it in engine in a matter of seconds. Doesn't seem all that difficult.

Yeah it's a good point, the sandbox editor seems very neat. They showcased it regarding the ship adverts etc:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68WbTT_2hWg&t=1750s


The typical Cry/LY criticisms which might still be relevant here though could be stuff like build times / stability, and overall art workflow. IE like the complaints touched on in this angry LY rant:

It’s broken, builds don’t work, and you can’t even do a build without getting hundreds of errors, and every reviewer complains about the Martial (sic) Editor, Character Editor...
No more excuses! You can say that you “inherited” a bad build process (from CryEngine 3.8.1) about 12 years ago, but look at CryEngine 5.6 / 5.7 and it has a substantially better build process than Lumberyard! But Look at Unreal Engine if you want to see a REAL Game Engine with a quick/fast/easy to use Build Process, and easy to develop workflow.

A useful tool suddenly becomes somewhat blunted if you're then waiting Nx4 hrs for a render, which may then fail. (Versus N hrs in UE for more reliable output or whatever etc).

In the original 'leaked' example their focus was on building cinematics prior to full sign off. In that use case it could be the better option to go with the easier workflow / more reliable output etc, for faster iteration.

Given the known downsides of Cry/LY the core idea doesn't seem that outlandish ¯\(ツ)/¯

Throw in bonus stuff like the job adverts, and general in-house issues with tools & stability etc. And yeah. Chalk it up in the 'never know' category ;)
 
Was talking in general of how a little bit of trickery can make in engine footage look better than the game - with Odyssey just being quite the prominent example :D

It's a cute point. But given that discussion was about a throw-away weekly vid, would that seem like an odd use of CIG's time/resources to you? Like if they were doing that form of polish or fakery weekly etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom