The Star Citizen Thread V2.0

[Dante80]

edit: any ideas about this thread? i was thinking about all mess and my thoughts were similar, that designers messed up alot in ship designs

The problem is twofold.

1. The physics and flight model are fine, but the IFCS is more like...just FCS. The intelligent part is missing currently and as a result there are some problems with control input and ship behavior.

CIG has come forward and acknowledged the IFCS problems. It will get better as we move forward. Sadly, some backers think that the current ship behavior is intentional and planned, to the point of promoting this flawed system as an innovative, skill dependent and realistic model for dogfighting.

2. The ships. CIG had to produce them and put them in the hangar so that they could fund the game. The result is that ship design was finalized and incorporated to the game before a number of crucial mechanics (like physics, flight model, cargo system and management, center of mass, gimbaled thruster behavior, avatar size when inside the ship etc) were made. The result is:

a. Ships (especially the Aurora) suffer from poor design errors, which are enlarged by the realistic flight model that tries to emulate how a ship flies according to a number of non arbitrary rules.
b. A lot of development hours are wasted in redesigning ships again and again as the mechanics and the feature set in the game unfolds. Take for example PBR for the textures, that made reworking all graphical assets in the ships imperative, or issues with the cargo holds and even the height of interiors which made the avatar clip through them.

CIG are actively working to address those issues.

 

[Bains]

The problem is twofold.

1. The physics and flight model are fine, but the IFCS is more like...just FCS. The intelligent part is missing currently and as a result there are some problems with control input and ship behavior.

CIG has come forward and acknowledged the IFCS problems. It will get better as we move forward. Sadly, some backers think that the current ship behavior is intentional and planned, to the point of promoting this flawed system as an innovative, skill dependent and realistic model for dogfighting.

2. The ships. CIG had to produce them and put them in the hangar so that they could fund the game. The result is that ship design was finalized and incorporated to the game before a number of crucial mechanics (like physics, flight model, cargo system and management, center of mass, gimbaled thruster behavior, avatar size when inside the ship etc) were made. The result is:

a. Ships (especially the Aurora) suffer from poor design errors, which are enlarged by the realistic flight model that tries to emulate how a ship flies according to a number of non arbitrary rules.
b. A lot of development hours are wasted in redesigning ships again and again as the mechanics and the feature set in the game unfolds. Take for example PBR for the textures, that made reworking all graphical assets in the ships imperative, or issues with the cargo holds and even the height of interiors which made the avatar clip through them.

CIG are actively working to address those issues.

Wait a second.

They did not 'have to build all the ships to fund the game'

That they choose to do that to make even more money, not to fund the game. And people have been raising that as a concern predicting showstoppers emerging as a result of this approach for a very long time.

"Roberts will create Star Citizen without a publisher. He has private investment, but needs to do "an element" of crowd funding to raise between two and four million dollars and validate the private investors' valuation of the project. The game itself will cost between 12 million and 14 million dollars to create.

"I can make it for this price because I'm not making it inside the system," he said. "If I did it inside the system that would be $20+ million."


But..interesting update in all the detail, thanks.

Well, now one of these showstoppers has emerged. Interesting to see what happens next. I suspect a real problem involving going back to the drawing board with the ships and much wastage of time and money.

 

[Bains]

The problem is twofold.

1. The physics and flight model are fine, but the IFCS is more like...just FCS. The intelligent part is missing currently and as a result there are some problems with control input and ship behavior.

CIG has come forward and acknowledged the IFCS problems. It will get better as we move forward. Sadly, some backers think that the current ship behavior is intentional and planned, to the point of promoting this flawed system as an innovative, skill dependent and realistic model for dogfighting.

2. The ships. CIG had to produce them and put them in the hangar so that they could fund the game. The result is that ship design was finalized and incorporated to the game before a number of crucial mechanics (like physics, flight model, cargo system and management, center of mass, gimbaled thruster behavior, avatar size when inside the ship etc) were made. The result is:

a. Ships (especially the Aurora) suffer from poor design errors, which are enlarged by the realistic flight model that tries to emulate how a ship flies according to a number of non arbitrary rules.
b. A lot of development hours are wasted in redesigning ships again and again as the mechanics and the feature set in the game unfolds. Take for example PBR for the textures, that made reworking all graphical assets in the ships imperative, or issues with the cargo holds and even the height of interiors which made the avatar clip through them.

CIG are actively working to address those issues.

Just reread your post. This is a real mess, looking worse the more you read it. Its gonna hurt. No doubt about it.

 

[forger]

yes, i hope they will fix but that just proven my point: designers messed up and now programmers must try to fix it or other designers must redesign.

that's what i call very bad planing - sometimes you need to stop and allow others to catch up rather than make something that will be redone later.

the game hadn't even released alpha module but they already redesigned number of ships, waste of resources, time and money if you ask me.

Bain: this already is hurting CIG big time, don't you see how "fun" is AC now ;/
i am sure they will fix it, but everyone will remember how broke it was, it's bad for their karma

 

[Bains]

i backed, so many backed, when no ships existed and we were in no hurry to see them.

I visited my hanger once up until the alpha.

Nothing stopped them using wire frames or doing a one ship DFM. then adding one more, testing each as they went.

They can not even say, in hindsight we can see this, because people were scratching their heads criticizing this approach for a long time.


So, I wonder how many problems and knock on issues this will cause?

Bain: this already is hurting CIG big time, don't you see how "fun" is AC now ;/
i am sure they will fix it, but everyone will remember how broke it was, it's bad for their karma

You know we could go back and pull out post after post where we predicted this, meanwhile fanboys telling us we were just talking crap.

 

[ianw]

The problem is twofold.

1. The physics and flight model are fine, but the IFCS is more like...just FCS. The intelligent part is missing currently and as a result there are some problems with control input and ship behavior.

CIG has come forward and acknowledged the IFCS problems. It will get better as we move forward. Sadly, some backers think that the current ship behavior is intentional and planned, to the point of promoting this flawed system as an innovative, skill dependent and realistic model for dogfighting.

2. The ships. CIG had to produce them and put them in the hangar so that they could fund the game. The result is that ship design was finalized and incorporated to the game before a number of crucial mechanics (like physics, flight model, cargo system and management, center of mass, gimbaled thruster behavior, avatar size when inside the ship etc) were made. The result is:

a. Ships (especially the Aurora) suffer from poor design errors, which are enlarged by the realistic flight model that tries to emulate how a ship flies according to a number of non arbitrary rules.
b. A lot of development hours are wasted in redesigning ships again and again as the mechanics and the feature set in the game unfolds. Take for example PBR for the textures, that made reworking all graphical assets in the ships imperative, or issues with the cargo holds and even the height of interiors which made the avatar clip through them.

CIG are actively working to address those issues.

Dante, I don't doubt what you're saying as it nearly always seems well balanced when you post on both sites. But I have to ask is the above accurate?

Is it really the case that in spite of us being told they were actually designing ships where all the moving parts were accurate and had to fit together and function, they actually just slung them together and someone signed off on them?

So somehow they forgot to check whether the avatars could fit in them, whether the thrusters would function as intended, whether the cargo would fit in and they'd actually "fly".

And then having checked none of the above it got polished and they got put in game?

That's on a par with building a house with no doors.

How is that in any way remotely credible? Please tell me I have totally got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Bains]

Dante, I don't doubt what you're saying as it nearly always seems well balanced when you post on both sites. But I have to ask is the above accurate?

Is it really the case that in spite of us being told they were actually designing ships where all the moving parts were accurate and had to fit together and function, they actually just slung them together and someone signed off on them?

So somehow they forgot to check whether the avatars could fit in them, whether the thrusters would function as intended, whether the cargo would fit in and they'd actually "fly".

And then having checked none of the above it got polished and they got put in game?

That's on a par with building a house with no doors.

How is that in any way remotely credible? Please tell me I have totally got the wrong end of the stick.

Good questions.

And look at this BTW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LuHNXTN--0

OK, I might be entering the realm of conspiracy theory here, but do you really think that x box controller is being used as a real controller, or is just a prop for the video?

 

[Aleksej]

The problem is twofold.

1. The physics and flight model are fine, but the IFCS is more like...just FCS. The intelligent part is missing currently and as a result there are some problems with control input and ship behavior.

CIG has come forward and acknowledged the IFCS problems. It will get better as we move forward. Sadly, some backers think that the current ship behavior is intentional and planned, to the point of promoting this flawed system as an innovative, skill dependent and realistic model for dogfighting.

2. The ships. CIG had to produce them and put them in the hangar so that they could fund the game. The result is that ship design was finalized and incorporated to the game before a number of crucial mechanics (like physics, flight model, cargo system and management, center of mass, gimbaled thruster behavior, avatar size when inside the ship etc) were made. The result is:

a. Ships (especially the Aurora) suffer from poor design errors, which are enlarged by the realistic flight model that tries to emulate how a ship flies according to a number of non arbitrary rules.
b. A lot of development hours are wasted in redesigning ships again and again as the mechanics and the feature set in the game unfolds. Take for example PBR for the textures, that made reworking all graphical assets in the ships imperative, or issues with the cargo holds and even the height of interiors which made the avatar clip through them.

CIG are actively working to address those issues.

1. I agree that these are flight controls that cause more problems rather than flight model itself, which actually might be really good, however some people easily confuse these two.

It is also easy to explain why some of the backers think that this model is intentional - CIG delayed DFM for 6 months and this was still not enough and now they blame backers that it was their impatience that caused CIG to released AC in the very raw, unfinished and unpolished state. What the hell?

However most probably they simply did not want to lose money by frustrating backers with yet another delay proving again their inability to follow their own schedule. And we are not talking here about how convenient they have set the official release date just 1 day ahead of ED PB1 release.

2. As for ships - this completely demonstrates that CIG did not have a solid plan for the game before they have started the development. A lot of this design misconceptions could have been ruled out during the planning. However, they have chosen to make very detailed ships to sell them and think of how this would fly only then.

 

[Bains]

1. I agree that these are flight controls that cause more problems rather than flight model itself, which actually might be really good, however some people easily confuse these two.

It is also easy to explain why some of the backers think that this model is intentional - CIG delayed DFM for 6 months and this was still not enough and now they blame backers that it was their impatience that caused CIG to released AC in the very raw, unfinished and unpolished state. What the hell?

However most probably they simply did not want to lose money by frustrating backers with yet another delay proving again their inability to follow their own schedule. And we are not talking here about how convenient they have set the official release date just 1 day ahead of ED PB1 release.

2. As for ships - this completely demonstrates that CIG did not have a solid plan for the game before they have started the development. A lot of this design misconceptions could have been ruled out during the planning. However, they have chosen to make very detailed ships to sell them and think of how this would fly only then.

 

[Aleksej]

This is exactly what might happen to CIG if they will listen to fanboys and won't listen to critics.

 

[Bains]

This is exactly what might happen to CIG if they will listen to fanboys and won't listen to critics.

I don't even think this one's down to fanboyism. This is all them, all by themselves.

 

[Aleksej]

I don't even think this one's down to fanboyism. This is all them, all by themselves.

Of course it is really bad management and decisions that lead to the current state of AC. Now CIG has a lot to do in order to repair this damage. The only way they might improve is to listen to the critics, otherwise they will lose their fan base.

 

[Bains]

Of course it is really bad management and decisions that lead to the current state of AC. Now CIG has a lot to do in order to repair this damage. The only way they might improve is to listen to the critics, otherwise they will lose their fan base.

We'll they are definitely learn the hard way. It's beginning to seem like whenever there are two possible paths, one represents the right choice, the other the screw up guaranteed, every time they seem to embrace the path leading to screw up.

 

[Dante80]

Dante, I don't doubt what you're saying as it nearly always seems well balanced when you post on both sites. But I have to ask is the above accurate?

Is it really the case that in spite of us being told they were actually designing ships where all the moving parts were accurate and had to fit together and function, they actually just slung them together and someone signed off on them?

So somehow they forgot to check whether the avatars could fit in them, whether the thrusters would function as intended, whether the cargo would fit in and they'd actually "fly".

And then having checked none of the above it got polished and they got put in game?

That's on a par with building a house with no doors.

How is that in any way remotely credible? Please tell me I have totally got the wrong end of the stick.

Here are some examples.

1. i300, the avatar clipped through the roof. Also, loading cargo in the space between the gull-type doors is somewhat impossible..so CIG is thinking of putting an external cargo trunk below the ship, like the aurora has. The first problem came from rushed design, the second from not working first on how the actual cargo is visualized, standardized, stored and moved in the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gStAqq4zj0M

2. hornet, the seat was so low that you couldn't see anything outside. They put the seat higher. As soon as they did that, it became obvious that the metal bars making the canopy were so thick that the resulting FOV was unacceptable for a dogfighter. So they re-did the canopy.

http://i.imgur.com/HNcig0S.jpg
http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r664/jakedooo/SpaceSuit_zps47379d0f.jpg

3. freelancer. The cargo bay door was so short and the ship was so high that when opened it made a 50o angle, thus making loading cargo impossible. The cargo bay floor was also not flat in the edges, thus removing a lot of usable space for loading cargo. The canopy had a very, very low amount of visibility. So they redid that. And it still was suboptimal. So they did that again.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img855/379/nqig.jpg
http://star-citizen.mmrpg.biz/var/albums/Freelancer Cargo Bay.png?m=1377938397
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8ef0Ffwhc

4. The idris was offered as a corvette. When the actual design came to the interiors, CIG had to either scrap the ship or tell the guys that bought it that it would have half the features advertised.

They made it a frigate and doubled the size.

These are facts btw, not complaints.

 

[psyron]

...
However most probably they simply did not want to lose money by frustrating backers with yet another delay proving again their inability to follow their own schedule. And we are not talking here about how convenient they have set the official release date just 1 day ahead of ED PB1 release.
...

That made me really angry. CIG never talked about ED in their millions of Wingman Hangar episodes. Never compared their glorious SC to that mediocre ED.

But at the same time i am quite 100% sure that internaly they observed ED very closely and the decision to release their AC 1 day ahead of ED PB1 is by no way a coincidence ... (We will not talk about this of course)

Edit:
Only at the end of ED's Kickstarter CR helped to promote ED a little bit. But looking back i am not sure what really was his motivation. Maybe he wanted to show some pity to DB to make it clear that he is the boss.

 

[Bains]

What about the maneuvering thruster placements on all the ships? There is no way that was tested early on, if at all, from what I can see.

This is key is it not if you are using a real physics model?

 

[Aleksej]

What about the maneuvering thruster placements on all the ships? There is no way that was tested early on, if at all, from what I can see.

This is key is it not if you are using a real physics model?

Another idea just came to my mind. Their problems are also caused by different studios that make completely different parts of the game and this causes simple incompatibilities on the hardware level, i.e. they have detailed ships - that is nice, they have realistic flight model - this is also nice, but when they have tried to combine them these proved to be not very compatible. So now C"$"R started to think of simplifications to the models and gameplay, first he promised WWII combat... and now he says that we are flying asteroids and not spaceships. So what is the asteroid - it is simply a brick. How about planetary landings now, only aerodynamic ships are capable of entering the atmosphere and landing, asteroids always crash and burn. If a spaceship is damaged and not aerodynamic capable it will be destroyed entering the atmosphere. So how would they make asteroids land on the planet?

 

[Cosmo Bozo]

Here are some examples.

1. i300, the avatar clipped through the roof. Also, loading cargo in the space between the gull-type doors is somewhat impossible..so CIG is thinking of putting an external cargo trunk below the ship, like the aurora has. The first problem came from rushed design, the second from not working first on how the actual cargo is visualized, standardized, stored and moved in the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gStAqq4zj0M

2. hornet, the seat was so low that you couldn't see anything outside. They put the seat higher. As soon as they did that, it became obvious that the metal bars making the canopy were so thick that the resulting FOV was unacceptable for a dogfighter. So they re-did the canopy.

http://i.imgur.com/HNcig0S.jpg
http://i1361.photobucket.com/albums/r664/jakedooo/SpaceSuit_zps47379d0f.jpg

3. freelancer. The cargo bay door was so short and the ship was so high that when opened it made a 50o angle, thus making loading cargo impossible. The cargo bay floor was also not flat in the edges, thus removing a lot of usable space for loading cargo. The canopy had a very, very low amount of visibility. So they redid that. And it still was suboptimal. So they did that again.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img855/379/nqig.jpg
http://star-citizen.mmrpg.biz/var/albums/Freelancer Cargo Bay.png?m=1377938397
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL8ef0Ffwhc

4. The idris was offered as a corvette. When the actual design came to the interiors, CIG had to either scrap the ship or tell the guys that bought it that it would have half the features advertised.

They made it a frigate and doubled the size.

These are facts btw, not complaints.

Did they not watch the elite kickstarter videos where David Braben said they were working all this stuff out beforehand to make things easier later on and think, hmmmmm....we could do that?

 

[Bains]

You still there Dante?

 

[Dante80]

You still there Dante?

Er, yep?