The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

What changed? Backer confidence took an impact during Citizencon, but judging by CIG's earning this month (even though they were supplemented by sales of supposedly unique ships, which to me is a symptom of CIG struggling) it's back to the old levels. Is there any reason why they can't release 2.6 on 8th of December, no matter what state it's in? Launch of 2.0 was terrible and it didn't hurt CIG that much, either.

"Judging by CIG numbers" is key answer here. We already know they don't cover refunds, and at this point is as trustworthy as any other fake reporting they have done in last years. They will never be forced to reveal or allow audit those numbers.

Also people buying those jpeg ships aren't whole community. Most of it already said they won't spend a dime till they see at least SQ42 beta on horizon. Fact whales keep pushing money feels more like desperation, because despite how much they get in a month, it won't make up for lack of money in first half of 2017.

 

[Ben Parry]

Eh, you seem to have misread me in a couple of places -
The issue of trust, was trust that you wouldn't shift definitions on me, or backtrack, etc.
1a, you still have wrong, is not that some systems weren't converted, is that some parts of those systems don't need to run slow. So on a line by line basis, it's been considered how much precision is needed.
1b, vi, The tube isn't there to hide anything, it's just for style.
2b, the concept of internal spaces is just a matter of visibility culling boxes, which are just another entity type. The ability to host objects within objects is also generic.
Also, you're wrong about physics grids- most solvers start to come apart when object masses are too different, so trying to naively handle a person riding in an aircraft carrier will not only be inefficient, it'll explode.

 

[GaryII]

"Judging by CIG numbers" is key answer here. We already know they don't cover refunds, and at this point is as trustworthy as any other fake reporting they have done in last years.

I doubt, that refunds are more then 5 % from daily income.
Currently at least their forums are more or less back to positive theory crafting..
So they can easily delay everything to Q1 2017 if needed...

 

[Voivod]

I doubt, that refunds are more then 5 % from daily income.

I doubt it's even that. Most people don't bother with getting a refund.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I doubt, that refunds are more then 5 % from daily income.
Currently at least their forums are more or less back to positive theory crafting..
So they can easily delay everything to Q1 2017 if needed...

Forums have always been into positive theory crafting realm. Most of skeptics and people waiting on fences don't post there.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

So, for the hard of thinking, Ben can you confirm that my layman's interpretation of you and Derek talking grown-up science is:

If I get out of my bunk in Port Olisar, there is never any point from getting up, getting out of the airlocks, getting into a ship, flying to anywhere in the Stanton system, even onto a planetary base or PoI when they are in-game, that requires you to "transition / change / move across a boundary" from one enclosed instance to another?
Every single thing in Stanton exists within one big code box, but obviously only the bits you can see / touch / interact with are drawn or loaded into the box you are in. This box can be shared with many other players too.

Is there any soft limit of at what point detail will become active around you? Scanner range and eyeball and so on? I know you can look ahead and see a planet, what I mean is, will there be any point where active things will fade out of your area of concern? If someone flies away from you, how far can they get before they are lost from sight, as a very rough example?

The only time you will change boxes is when you change star systems (once they are in-game), which will use some kind of stylised hyperspace jump to mask the loading (like the other game...)

If my interpretation is correct it finally lays to rest the old issue of the CryEngine 8km map (I think?). I know there is always a certain element of the Wizard not wanting to draw back the curtain, so don't feel you need to share more than is okay for public consumption.

Also please forgive me for creating or mangling any terms, I am purely a consumer of software. I have no training and little understanding of anything beyond getting a BBC model B to print my name in a big font in random colours!

 

[Ben Parry]

So, for the hard of thinking, Ben can you confirm that my layman's interpretation of you and Derek talking grown-up science is:

If I get out of my bunk in Port Olisar, there is never any point from getting up, getting out of the airlocks, getting into a ship, flying to anywhere in the Stanton system, even onto a planetary base or PoI when they are in-game, that requires you to "transition / change / move across a boundary" from one enclosed instance to another?
Every single thing in Stanton exists within one big code box, but obviously only the bits you can see / touch / interact with are drawn or loaded into the box you are in. This box can be shared with many other players too.

Yeah, though with the caveat that physics stuff shifts around when you enter a local physics grid.

Is there any soft limit of at what point detail will become active around you? Scanner range and eyeball and so on? I know you can look ahead and see a planet, what I mean is, will there be any point where active things will fade out of your area of concern? If someone flies away from you, how far can they get before they are lost from sight, as a very rough example?

Visually, we cull things (and sub-parts of things) when they're below a certain screen size. So a ship's missiles vanish when you're a little way off, and the whole ship goes a bit further away. Network LOD and culling of entity updates I don't know about, though at the moment it's incomplete anyway, so you're receiving updates on far more entities than you need.

The only time you will change boxes is when you change star systems (once they are in-game), which will use some kind of stylised hyperspace jump to mask the loading (like the other game...)

This is my understanding, yes.

If my interpretation is correct it finally lays to rest the old issue of the CryEngine 8km map (I think?). I know there is always a certain element of the Wizard not wanting to draw back the curtain, so don't feel you need to share more than is okay for public consumption.

Also please forgive me for creating or mangling any terms, I am purely a consumer of software. I have no training and little understanding of anything beyond getting a BBC model B to print my name in a big font in random colours!

No problem, you're dead on. If you make up a term and immediately explain what you're trying to represent with it, you've got a good chance of being understood. Especially by programmers, since ~90% of programming (if you don't count bug hunts) consists of making up terms and then rigorously defining them.

 

[GaryII]

Forums have always been into positive theory crafting realm. Most of skeptics and people waiting on fences don't post there.

Not all the time, after CitCon there were a lot of negative threads, same after announcement of cash only ship sales, but now its all back to "normal"...

- - - Updated - - -

Most people don't bother with getting a refund.

Yes, i am one of them, but i have basic package so i do not care, i have feeling that I just paid to see good comedy/drama show and maybe chance to play some broken game at some time...

 

[Tippis]

I doubt it's even that. Most people don't bother with getting a refund.

Coincidentally, the headline news in Sweden today is a rash of billing frauds targeting companies who don't contest charges or bogus contracts, and who are tricked into signing up to a completely pointless and worthless business registry… in Estonia.

Wait. CIG haven't opened a Tallinn office recently, have they?

 

[Kizbot]

I'm not a backer, just someone that has been following this thread for the last 300 odd pages and closely watched the story of its development. The whole project reminds me of another game in history that, at the time, was going to be revolutionary. I'm talking about Duke Nukem Forever. Not the game that was released.. No.. The one that was pitched back in 1997. Back then Duke Nukem 3D had just been a raging success and made 3D Realms a bunch of rock stars![yesnod] With money flooding in and a fan base crying out for more from clearly the greatest devs in the world, 3D Realms set out to make the next major game that was going to totally kick*ss. George Broussard really wanted to do it, he had the money, the team and the ideas. Loads of ideas! .....Then more ideas! .....Plus loads of money! What could go wrong?

When they set out to create DN4 they really had the best intentions of releasing something modern and fresh. They licensed the Quake II engine which was superior at the time (some say costing around $500,000! ) Problem is that very shortly after that, the Unreal engine came along which was far better suited for outdoor large scenes. Something that George Broussard wanted and they decided to migrate to it, scrapping much of the work previously done over 12 months to enable the development to start on a more suitable foundation. At this point George Broussard also had a habit of saying the game was right around the corner all the time, as well as often seeing something cool in another game and needing it be in DN4. Feature creep began to heavily delay the project as the scope kept growing and as more time passed the devs began to leave.. Half-Life came and went.. After many delays, George Broussard started just saying it will release "When it's done". The delays became frequent because of another similarity, no publishers . They were funding the project themselves so didn't have anyone else dictating when something had to be finished. (Bells ring..)

Of course, after 5 years of development, much of the money had been spent and they had to start looking for funding from publishers willing to part with cash to a project that still needed lots of work, even after so much dev time. Many of the devs had left and there was still much about the game still in a concept or alpha stage. Any graphics up till this point had always been praised but none of the gameplay could be demonstrated. (Bells ringing yet? ) If you sit and read into all the history of the development hell tar pit that clutched hold of the game for 15 years before it was finally released, It's hard not to expect SC to suffer from many of the same problems like funding issues, dev's leaving the company, newer games being superior, changes in hardware or software like DirectX and VR. Companies 20 years ago struggled to make a product of 15 years development look fresh and modern...I don't see how that is going to have changed for SC.

Whenever I am talking about SC with my friends, we usually agree that the artwork and concept looks better than anything we have ever seen. Trouble I see is that with them all working with the mind-set that it's released 'when its done' is just a recipe for trouble. There are other games that have followed similar fates and ultimately became Vapourware but none share as many similarities as I think SC does with DN4.

 

[NeilF]

I was watching a part of a live stream last night, and what seemed clear to me i sthere are developers involved who appear to really believe this project will get done, and that they really believe there's some truly deep, solid, ground-breaking mechanics behind it.

Going to be fascinating to see if it's smoke and mirrors, if it falls flat on its face through mismanagement, we get only an approximation of what's being aimed for, or, we actually get something amazing!

 

[dsmart]

I was watching a part of a live stream last night, and what seemed clear to me i sthere are developers involved who appear to really believe this project will get done, and that they really believe there's some truly deep, solid, ground-breaking mechanics behind it.

Going to be fascinating to see if it's smoke and mirrors, if it falls flat on its face through mismanagement, we get only an approximation of what's being aimed for, or, we actually get something amazing!

My personal opinion is that i) It is ii) It will.

And that's why we have the Internet. Everything lives forever; so we get to come back to all these quotes

To be clear, it's unfortunate. As I said in my very first blog, I really wanted to see this game made because if guys like me who have spent decades on the genre had those funds, it's the sort of all-encompassing game we'd build at triple A level. But alas, here we are.

 

[Stormprooter]

My personal opinion is that i) It is ii) It will.

And that's why we have the Internet. Everything lives forever; so we get to come back to all these quotes

To be clear, it's unfortunate. As I said in my very first blog, I really wanted to see this game made because if guys like me who have spent decades on the genre had those funds, it's the sort of all-encompassing game we'd build at triple A level. But alas, here we are.

I want at least to be dissapointed by 2.6 before it all goes down the pan for good

 

[dsmart]

Eh, you seem to have misread me in a couple of places -
The issue of trust, was trust that you wouldn't shift definitions on me, or backtrack, etc.

I see. Well, there's no backtracking being done by me. I take pride in consistency. So if there is anything that you feel I've backtracked on, please feel free to point it out; because you can't just throw that out there and not elaborate (which is precisely why we're still having this discussion btw). For your quick reference, the entire thread of our discussion is preserved here for posterity; complete with links.

1a, you still have wrong, is not that some systems weren't converted, is that some parts of those systems don't need to run slow. So on a line by line basis, it's been considered how much precision is needed.

Oh c'mon! Seriously? How can I be "wrong"? I indicated that there is no way in hell that StarEngine (built on custom CE3.x) had been converted to handle 64-Bit size scenes, and the complimentary 64-Bit positioning within them. Sean Tracy went on the record and indicated that only some modules were in fact converted. So, what exactly is it that I'm wrong about? So yeah, it is that some systems (e.g. AI, Physics etc) weren't converted (because they didn't need to be).

1b, vi, The tube isn't there to hide anything, it's just for style.

Yes, I gathered that. But even if it's a style thing, it's still hiding something: the transition through space. My guess is that you guys compress the transit so much that, even with motion blur, it would probably look rubbish. So it makes sense to hide it. It's even more suspicious that it's being done in intra-system travel, where it makes less sense, given the shorter travel distances. As seen in my games and others, any such long distance transit is done with such "styling", but still sped up so you see world space (and all the POIs) race past. If you haven't yet, watch the UCCE video again and you'll see what I mean.

2b, the concept of internal spaces is just a matter of visibility culling boxes, which are just another entity type. The ability to host objects within objects is also generic.

That's the point I was making; and the reason for that question in the first place. So basically, in keeping with "generic" convention; you guys have a box (Port Olisar) inside a box (Stanton) - just as I stated/asked.

Also, you're wrong about physics grids- most solvers start to come apart when object masses are too different, so trying to naively handle a person riding in an aircraft carrier will not only be inefficient, it'll explode.

Actually, no, I'm not wrong. Solvers (all types) come apart for a variety of reasons - most of those are quite evident in the current SC alpha. And having different "physics grids" (e.g. box in a box) embedded - especially depending on the object type, distance from world origin etc - is one of those bugs that you simply can't fix, but just have to live with. This is evidenced by the currently janky nature of multi-crew ships, in which, for a year now, those sort of issues still aren't resolved. But backers are still theory-crafting about 100 player crew ships. I can't wait to see how they get to attach/connect one ship to another (e.g. the Prowler). But seeing as I don't believe it's ever going to get that far, it's pointless speculating.

The only time you will change boxes is when you change star systems (once they are in-game), which will use some kind of stylised hyperspace jump to mask the loading (like the other game...)

This is my understanding, yes.

So zoned (stitched) then.

If you make up a term and immediately explain what you're trying to represent with it, you've got a good chance of being understood. Especially by programmers, since ~90% of programming (if you don't count bug hunts) consists of making up terms and then rigorously defining them.

Nice. You're doing it again. Thus far, in our discourse, you have displayed complete ignorance of some widely used technical terminology - which I didn't make up; and which one trip to Google confirms.

I have tried to be polite and respectful in our banter, out of respect for our profession. But yet, you keep making these jabs for no apparent reason other than to display your own arrogance and insecurities. God forbid, the old guy dumping on your project knows more - or has more experience - than you do. We can't have that. Because after all, we have to keep up appearances. But that's your lot. The difference between you and me is that for over 30 years, I've called my own shots. So very little is of any consequence to my well-being; and I don't have to put up airs in order to impress anyone. I'm just me - faults and all. Meanwhile, at this point in your short career, you have the dubious distinction of being attached to and associated with what is turning out be the largest videogame project collapse in gaming history. You should be proud.

You're young; I get it; but arrogance diminishes wisdom; while killing curiosity and passion.

I'm done.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

I constantly run the risk of being too nice, Derek, but I read Ben's reply about programmers as lumping himself into that with a bit of self-deprecation. It didn't come across to me as a "that's what he does" barb.

I reserve the right to be wrong though. I have made a solid and largely uneventful career out of it.

 

[dsmart]

I constantly run the risk of being too nice, Derek, but I read Ben's reply about programmers as lumping himself into that with a bit of self-deprecation. It didn't come across to me as a "that's what he does" barb.

I reserve the right to be wrong though. I have made a solid and largely uneventful career out of it.

Maybe. But it's not the first time; and I've tried to sidestep all of them.

 

[Toumal]

Thank you for being one of the only voices of reason in this ocean of lies.

Interesting. I'm seeing everything I said a long time (1.5 years and longer) ago confirmed. Plus it was CIG themselves who responded to the question about double precision by pointing at a 64-bit executable. It was CR himself who confused the two things on several occasions.

I find it pretty pointless to debate how SC handles precision now though. It seems they solved that issue, and that's cool.

Also for the record, the "just get it done" kind of work attitude can be a big problem down the road. I'm also wary of programmers inventing their own terms to describe things. It's usually a sign of a lack of experience - or that you're really doing groundbreaking stuff. Usually it's the former though
If you're working on a GUI frontend and you know what things like MVC or value binding mean, you don't have to do what a former colleague did, reinvent the wheel badly, and call it "Field Manager".

If you engage in mortgage-driven development and want to make sure nobody can ever work with your stuff, then yes, inventing your own terms is a fundamental part of building up an inpenetrable defensive layer of obfuscation

 

[Adept]

Also, you're wrong about physics grids- most solvers start to come apart when object masses are too different, so trying to naively handle a person riding in an aircraft carrier will not only be inefficient, it'll explode.

Is there some way to impart inertia (or acceleration if you will) from the ship's movement, including collisions, to a player avatar walking inside the ship? The accelerations are so incredibly high (like they are in Elite, to be fair) that maybe it would make multicrew gameplay impossible anyway. Still, would it in theory be possible for a person riding a space ship (inside the ship's physics grid) to feel the acceleration of the ship (which is in the larger scene's physics grid)?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a backer, just someone that has been following this thread for the last 300 odd pages and closely watched the story of its development. The whole project reminds me of another game in history that, at the time, was going to be revolutionary. I'm talking about Duke Nukem Forever.

My go-to comparisons are Daikatana and Freelancer.

 

[dsmart]

Interesting. I'm seeing everything I said a long time (1.5 years and longer) ago confirmed. Plus it was CIG themselves who responded to the question about double precision by pointing at a 64-bit executable. It was CR himself who confused the two things on several occasions.

I find it pretty pointless to debate how SC handles precision now though. It seems they solved that issue, and that's cool.

Also for the record, the "just get it done" kind of work attitude can be a big problem down the road. I'm also wary of programmers inventing their own terms to describe things. It's usually a sign of a lack of experience - or that you're really doing groundbreaking stuff. Usually it's the former though
If you're working on a GUI frontend and you know what things like MVC or value binding mean, you don't have to do what a former colleague did, reinvent the wheel badly, and call it "Field Manager".

If you engage in mortgage-driven development and want to make sure nobody can ever work with your stuff, then yes, inventing your own terms is a fundamental part of building up an inpenetrable defensive layer of obfuscation

Don't forget, they excel at theory-crafting and revisionist history. Here we are.

ps: I remember that time they removed head-bob, then called it: vision stabilization or somesuch nonsense

 

[Kizbot]

My go-to comparisons are Daikatana and Freelancer.

Ah yes... Daikatana was going to be my other comparison but so far Chris has not attempted to make me his b*tch.