Star Citizen Thread v6

[Marak]

But on your point yes the more players the lower the FPS, I am not sure why we decided on the number 8. In fact it drops starting at 2. Sometimes you get good gameplay with 8 plus, and in actual fact my average FPS has gone up 50% in the last couple of builds.

Could that be due to less people playing?

 

[Cobra1984]

Feb 29 2016
10 FTC Episode 77 @ 02:29
Q: Should we expect to see 24 or 32 player instances in the near future?

Chris Roberts:
"In 2.2 it is gonna be 24 players, so we've been working HARD on sort of optimizing areas so we can sort of scale more. We're pushing more and more into MULTIPLE CORES, MULTI-THREADING to be able to do more PHYSICS PROCESSING at the same time as we're doing more sort of entity updating and simulation. So you know, part of the result of that is moving to more players in CRUSADER, we'll continue and we're expecting to continue to sort of push that over time, to get more and more and you know we're actually working on some BACK END SERVER MESH TECH that will allow us to sort of MESH a lot more players all in essentially what will be kind of sort of the same instance."

 

[Cobra1984]

Could that be due to less people playing?

Nah. They just haven't switched on the Server Mesh Tech that Chris Roberts said they were working on in Feb 2016 - a year and a half ago.

 

[Almighty Bob]

You do understand that it scales exponentially? Getting it smooth at 24 would be great. Smooth at 32 is a bit of a dream considering the type of connections people have and how it all works. 'hundreds of ships' is so far of any reasonable estimate that I have difficulty understanding why anyone would ever expect anything like that. Its akin to saying "At the Olympics [athlete X] will hopefully run the 100m sprint under a second, although it will still be around 9 seconds at the next qualification match I believe.".

I expect it because I expect technology to change considerably, the human body probably will not.

Here are 3 questions for you Sleut;
1. Do you think at any time in the future, technology will improve and we will have 100's of ships and smooth gameplay at 60-100FPS?
2. If so when?
3. If not why not?

In the 90's we would have thought the early pocket sized Nokia phones,the internet as it is, and many other things were SC FI if anyone had suggested them. But whilst we thought that others had them working and we all had them a couple of years later.

My favourite quote from Dr Smart is - To build this they will need at least 5 years and $150,000,000. So Dr Smart thinks it is possible.

 

[MTBFritz]

All one-man fighters can pull off multiple g of vertical acceleration, they don't need any wings.

Edit: Also, wasn't Constellation landing on an atmospheric planet in the 2014 Gamescom demo? It doesn't have any wings.

I doubt wings would be needed. Ships in SC are equipped with artificial gravity same as the home port. EVA an inch above ground but make contact and you "fall" down and have to pick yourself up. Of course I have no idea if the technology would allow to provide artificial gravity for the whole craft or just the inside. The lore is a lil sketchy there and of course we cannot make conclusions from the real world

 

[Almighty Bob]

Alright, I'm gonna go right ahead and say it:

Who cares?

Seriously. Who cares if there are 8, 9, 10 or 11 people in an instance? Its such an arbitrary thing to focus on, just let it go. Because any which way, the player count isn't even remotely close to what is needed for the promised gameplay. Not even the biggest SC shill pretends the game supports the player count needed, not even remotely in any way. So who cares about whether it is 8 or 12, its vastly insufficient and that is the point.

Thanks for backing me up Sleuth, that is better said that what I put in post 2784

 

[Asp Explorer]

I expect it because I expect technology to change considerably, the human body probably will not.

And the speed of light absolutely won't

 

[Almighty Bob]

nice try and exactly why we have white knights coming here in the first place I guess

In traditional games and films the White Knights are the good guys. Same here?

 

[Almighty Bob]

I m not a fan of VR nor do I put much importance in it but that might change once I put my hands on a system.

Personally I would say the difference is the content. VR games tend to be rather basic and light in content. They are more like game demos trying to transport the systems capabilities. Development priority for these games is VR while the game itself takes a backseat. games supporting VR do it the other way around. Here the game itself is the priority and VR is just an add-on.

Fritz -- beg borrow or steal a Vive or OR and play ED. It will convince you otherwise. If you live in the UK let me know you can try mine, and I have beer.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Let me just run something past you guys.

You will note how planetary landings on are being touted as the reason for the expanded scope and delay of 3.0, because, according to the current version of CR lore, planetary landings anywhere were not going to be part of the game initially. That initially, landings were going to be scripted and restricted to limited areas, as shown by the Nyx demo way back in... 2014?

But, this version of the CR gospel only started being touted recently. Because i'm sure during 2016 citizencon we were being led to believe that they were already planning on allowing people to land anywhere and had done lots of work towards this already.

For evidence, i give you the citizencon 2016 presentation where they did the whole (scripted) flying around the planet (and keep in mind, at this point in time, they apparently didn't have the tools to do those planets, because apparently its making those tools that has slowed down 3.0... erm...)

It seems to me that there is some serious revisioning of the gospel with this. Or, am i missing something?

 

[shadragon]

It seems to me that there is some serious revisioning of the gospel with this. Or, am i missing something?

Ye shall believe whatever utterances cross thy Lord and saviors lips.

Don't remember what he said before, just listen to what he's saying now. So let it be written.

 

[frostypaw]

Let me just run something past you guys.

You will note how planetary landings on are being touted as the reason for the expanded scope and delay of 3.0, because, according to the current version of CR lore, planetary landings anywhere were not going to be part of the game initially. That initially, landings were going to be scripted and restricted to limited areas, as shown by the Nyx demo way back in... 2014?

But, this version of the CR gospel only started being touted recently. Because i'm sure during 2016 citizencon we were being led to believe that they were already planning on allowing people to land anywhere and had done lots of work towards this already.

For evidence, i give you the citizencon 2016 presentation where they did the whole (scripted) flying around the planet (and keep in mind, at this point in time, they apparently didn't have the tools to do those planets, because apparently its making those tools that has slowed down 3.0... erm...)

It seems to me that there is some serious revisioning of the gospel with this. Or, am i missing something?

Not at all, there's been big discussion about it on the Spectrum and somewhere on Reddit.

What CR said last year was fully explorable landable planets, not the few landing zones - claiming the expanded scope only happened very recently is disingenuous - the threads seem mysteriously hard to find now though

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I think in 2016 pitch for 3.0 was really confusing - first they said they will just roll out simple landing in dedicated stations, will add all those bits they demonstrated. And that's why I think many people bought it - it sounded doable. But soon after Gamescom they started to push confusing idea of having planets in 3.0 at release while still saying release is just around a corner. Then they said full bodies are not there yet...now they are saying they are...but of course everything that was done previously is scrapped and redone.

So gospel itself is very, very confusing. But this message about 3.0 is quite new, few months in fact.

 

[Almighty Bob]

And the speed of light absolutely won't

Probably not, but within living memory the speed of sound was thought to be the fastest that a plane could fly. Albert may be wrong about light (he was wrong about several things), is it a law of physics or a theory?
My ancestors thought that the world was flat. My Grandmother still believes in an all powerful deity who lives in the sky and created the earth in 7 days.

 

[1500]

They used to say that but I have explained it to them now, so they say something different.. As I said we are discussing an irrelevance anyway only the future builds matters.

But on your point yes the more players the lower the FPS, I am not sure why we decided on the number 8. In fact it drops starting at 2. Sometimes you get good gameplay with 8 plus, and in actual fact my average FPS has gone up 50% in the last couple of builds.

lol no one said the cap was 8 (I am sure you can point out these posts that you had to explain), they were always talking about the server and the client performance when talking about 8.

 

[Almighty Bob]

I think in 2016 pitch for 3.0 was really confusing - first they said they will just roll out simple landing in dedicated stations, will add all those bits they demonstrated. And that's why I think many people bought it - it sounded doable. But soon after Gamescom they started to push confusing idea of having planets in 3.0 at release while still saying release is just around a corner. Then they said full bodies are not there yet...now they are saying they are...but of course everything that was done previously is scrapped and redone.

So gospel itself is very, very confusing. But this message about 3.0 is quite new, few months in fact.

EagleBoy

I like that your posts are short so I read them, unlike the really long ones other people type. But it does not allow me to understand how your views of SC and CR came about.
So please go for it and take as long as you want (no hyperlinks please) to explain how your views formed. If possible without any extravagant phrases like ' the Gospel of Chris'ETC

I promise I will read it, as I am interested in peoples SC journey. Being less that 2 years into mine it helps me understand the development of the phenomenon that is Star Citizen especially why people became disillusioned.

 

[Azirphaeli]

They are correct in that adding VR into a game as an afterthought/later down the line typically is a bad idea. ED is known as such a good VR experience because ED was built for VR. There's a reason why Superhot VR had to be a separate game and not just a VR mode in the original.

By the time SC is in a place where the devs even think about revisiting VR (if they think about it at all) it's going to be such a headache to make it remotely enjoyable and comfortable that they would need to add another 3 years onto the [predicted] twenty eight years it's already been in development just to get a working proof of concept.

 

[McGlashan]

You will note how planetary landings on are being touted as the reason for the expanded scope and delay of 3.0, because, according to the current version of CR lore, planetary landings anywhere were not going to be part of the game initially. That initially, landings were going to be scripted and restricted to limited areas, as shown by the Nyx demo way back in... 2014?

For evidence, i give you the citizencon 2016 presentation where they did the whole (scripted) flying around the planet (and keep in mind, at this point in time, they apparently didn't have the tools to do those planets, because apparently its making those tools that has slowed down 3.0... erm...)

Not just flying around, they landed on a random patch of planet at one point. I don't recall any of their planetary landing demos being presented as scripted, pre-defined transitions. I mean they clearly were to anyone rational, but I don't recall anyone from CIG ever saying that's how it worked, or was going to work.

I think the revisionism from that community guy was more a slip of the tongue that reveals just how limited the technology they had a year ago really was, at a time when Roberts was on stage presenting a completely unrelated tech demo as the current state of the project. They have since proven they were years from delivering it in a playable form.

 

[frostypaw]

https://youtu.be/3l-epO6oUHE?t=425 Last gamescon presentation 2016

"So in 3.0 every planet, every moon will be fully done rendered, physicalised - you can land on any part of them and walk all the way around them if you want."

Now the version being shoved at suckers

It’s also important to consider that what 3.0 meant a year ago is a shadow of what 3.0 means today. Back then, Planetary Tech would have offered a fraction of the freedom that it does in 3.0, and most of the numerous infrastructure updates going into it now did not exist. [WL: Edited previous sentence for clarity] Roughly speaking, the approach was that we’d be able to deliver four roughly built, predetermined, pre-scripted, landing zones. The reality is that those would have been rather limited, and ultimately, somewhat of a variation of what Area 18 ArcCorp is today in terms of features and functionality.Today, 3.0 is about delivering an entirely explorable solar system with the backend services to make it dynamic.

I probably shouldn't swear.

 

[lysan]

Fritz -- beg borrow or steal a Vive or OR and play ED. It will convince you otherwise. If you live in the UK let me know you can try mine, and I have beer.

The beer thingy sounds inviting, I can throw in some ribs and if someone got a grill we got a party going