IF they can make it. We don't know if they can, the only thing we know is they have hard times faking it for shows and can't make a door work reliably.
Star Citizen Thread v6
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Pretty much says it all. Glad he included this:
"The only AI entities in this entire production, were at the starting base. All exhibiting various issues ranging from collision issues, animations that fail to trigger, pathfinding issues etc. He even claimed that there would be hundreds of NPC entities at these bases, all going about their daily routines on a schedule etc."
And again, CIG officials are confirming on their own forum that this presentation was a true account of 3.0 without 'smoke and mirrors'. It's no wonder they're down 50% of their funding on last year's presentation which was full on smoke and mirrors.
Or a ramp. Well they can make stairs work like a ramp, just not like stairs.
Maybe they should try making the doors work like stairs.
Most likely not.
It appears they have multiple systems as a middleware that combine with the Subsumption.
- Originally Moon Collider for the flight behaviour who now provides support for that part of the system
- Additionally they have Kythera since it's part of Lumberyard, most likely for more ground based NPC
Apart from that I imagine it's then about combining them into Subsumption instead of having them being two different systems.
And Moon Collider was finished at the end of 2016 and are now providing support to the frankfurt studio. So at most for the last 8 months they have worked on integrating Moon Collider+Kythera+Subsumption.
There are several problems with this post.
Firstly, Kythera is the AI tech developed by Moon Collider. Moon Collider is not AI for spaceships, it's the name of the studio.
Moon Collider, in a frightening replay of Ilfonic's Star Marine, were unable to integrate their AI into CIG's engine.
Second, Moon Collider bailed on the project in 2016 and freed themselves of any ongoing obligation to support the tech in relation to Star Citizen or Squadron 42.
Third, CIG brought the AI in-house, again repeating the same story of Star Marine.
Fourth, there is no AI system "completed" either for SC or SQ42 as of now.
Thank you, I did suspect I got several fact wrong in that post. And i did not say any AI system was completed.
Their planetary surfaces have more detail, it depends on what you mean by "planetary tech". From a looks standpoint it is far more realistic than what FD have shown so far and to be fair, although very functional from a technical standpoint, looks cartoony by comparison. The perfect combination for me at this point would be FD's implementation with CIG's looks.
On that note, I suspect this is the real reason why we haven't had planets with atmosphere's that we can land on yet. Creating a barren moon with rocks, dust and mountains is one thing. But through in planet life, trees and forests etc, unless you have the tech. to make this look at least semi-realistic and run at acceptable frame rates, you are going to end up with No Man's Sky and that will break the illusion completely.
I don't think they are there yet but I do look forward to that day greatly.
By comparison, CIG's atmospheres may as well not be there. They have no effect on the ships performance that I can see, the surfaces are still barren and rock strewn, although very nice to look at and they have a passable sky. Other than being able to get out and take your suit off and perhaps not suffocate there seems little point.
Last edited:
You know, in Neverwinter Nights 2 we could set up PCs with the ability to make decisions and not just follow preprogrammed routes. The out of the box AI that was provided was a bit limited, mainly to patrol and fight and the odd animation, but the community really did a great job on adding scripts that really expanded the scope of the AI and gave then some really variable routines. I wrote some routines myself.
And this was done over 10 years ago by amateur programmers. If CIG couldn't do this it would be amazing. Doing it is not anything special.
LOL, no, i can't agree with that. Some of the placeables look a lot more lifelike, but the actual terrain and heightmap looks like a flat texture laid over a smooth terrain in most places.
And its certainly not realistic, for a start, that teeny tiny moon has an atmosphere. There should be no atmosphere and impact craters all over the place.
Its been clear for the start that while FD are going for realism, SC are going for sci-fi-fantasy.
Ooooh! I got that ref! +rep!
Yup, if nothing else the ground textures in ED is kind of sad up close with SRV's and at low altitude everything just smears into a mud like texture.
This i believe is the greatest hurdle for ANYONE trying to make an atmospheric world.
- The amount of flora and most likely fauna required to make ONE world look realistic without looking like NMS with everything recoloured and renamed.
In SC case they can probably get away with using a limited selection on flora and fauna as (afaik) the terraforming used there is also meant to introduce earth like atmosphere and then settlers add imported crops.
A good example on a realistic atmospheric looking world is Infinity Battlescape with some really impressive mountain ranges but in that game the ground itself is very barren (well, they ARE in an Alpha as well and they are not aiming at landing on planets but more flight combat).
Again, I'm purely talking from a "fidelity" aspect, not how realistic the depiction may be. Another way to put it would be one looks like it was created with a terrain generator like Vue and the other does not.
SC
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images...tizencon/citizencon-2016-4k-screenshot-06.jpg
http://media.gamersnexus.net/images...tizencon/citizencon-2016-4k-screenshot-03.jpg
ED
http://abload.de/img/latelod1ruonu.jpg
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/ch...3/EliteDangerous64 2015-12-07 15-36-51-72.jpg
The SC landscapes, both close up and from the ground, show more detail. You can argue about whether that world could possibly exist in the real world due to mass etc. all you like, and perhaps I would agree with you but it doesn't alter the fact that CryEngine just looks prettier and cleaner.
Whether its the detail of the surface clutter, the quality of the texturing or something else, I don't really know.
Last edited:
Umm... you need to do something with your graphics settings.
You're more than welcome. You seem like a decent person.
It is important to realise how deep in trouble this project is from a technical standpoint. We are not talking about bugs or building solutions to problems.
We're talking about the engine being fundamentally and irretrievably broken. There is nothing wrong with supporting the project as long as you fully understand what it is you are supporting.
Ah, well, please do. Fidel away! Also, increase your graphics settings on ED.
It's a tough job for anyone to do I think. NMS does it but it looks very cartoony. The only option might be to just accept that even atmospheric worlds will all still be barren, perhaps oceans and what not but no flora and perhaps very little fauna if any at all.
You are no doubt aware the screenshots I posted were from Google Images and not my own?
Last edited:
Wait a second - are you comparing a handmade area from the 2016 faked SC demo which looked nothing like the surfaces in the new 3.0 with some very low detail setting screenies from some randomer in Elite which already scaled back it's surface texture generation tech to provide greater framerates for current gen consoles?
Two things to note here.
1. The SC shots are both bullshots and 4K images at that.
2. The first Elite shot is a screen capture of a compressed video and almost 2 years out of date. The second shot is also 2 years out of date.
If we are really going to compare can we atleast use something that represents the current state of the game otherwise it just looks dubious as hell.
- Status