Dude chill out,I am not calling you names....and by the way nothing was off-topic that poll-voting,"cult"&faitfull citizens are all closely related to the SC topic I ensure you....
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Dude chill out,I am not calling you names....and by the way nothing was off-topic that poll-voting,"cult"&faitfull citizens are all closely related to the SC topic I ensure you....
So 3.8 is basically the same as 3.7, just with more sugar on top ? Now I think I understand better. THX [heart]
Lucky man ! [yesnod]
This is where you're mistaken, they have a license for that code, so their version history includes all those old bits.
You and me both, that wouldn't be easy at all.
Right. And the CIG changes are not influenced by the sugar. But now they have the sugar, they can start using it. The basic idea is that Amazon had better sugar on top of 3.7 than CT, so CIG decided they want to make future dishes using Amazon's sugar. I am sure Ben will confirm that if CIG plans to use a lot of the new sugar that will take a lot of time, depending on what they are taking. But making SC compatible with the new sugar isnt that much work, and thats what they have done. Now, if they wanted to use the new sugar in all the dishes they already cooked, that would be a massive project. Impossible probably. The latter is what people usually mean with 'engine change', and that is not what happened here.
So:
No new sugar in old dishes.
but option to use new sugar in new dishes.
Last edited:
No, making it compatible with the new sugar could take work, so we went back in time to when there was no sugar, and switched the dishes there.
So Chris Roberts announcing that CIG had made the switch to Lumberyard, that it barely took any time, that no code was dropped, all of that is true.....because they haven't started using any code changes yet. Yet being the key word, the one that needs to be appended to everything Chris Roberts announced. They haven't YET devoted a ton of developers to the work. They haven't YET seen the impact on the timeline (I don't see how it could be small). They haven't YET dropped any existing StarEngine code.
Ben, I don't have any questions about how source control works, I'm just curious how much LY code you guys will use, how ugly is that diff report, things like that. We're both developers, we both know there will be no "copy the diff set from lumberyard into starEngine" my God the merge conflicts... it would be panic and Chaos and weeks before it would even build again. However it sounds like it will be easy enough to cherry-pick the features they want most. However I don't know that revised Netcode is a drop in replacement kind of thing. That sort of code has tentacles. I'm sure you know better than me, I haven't looked at Lumberyard OR CryEngine netCode. Ben I'll take your word for it if you don't think it'll add months to the 3.0 timeframe.
50 minutes later...
Hmm...I'll take that as a no.
When can we hear more about network improvements and the results? Will going to LY potentially set the networking effort back? Or, does the LY represent a scaled back end that was always going to be an outsourced solution anyway (instead of Google or whatever)?
If the latter is true, why is this getting so much hype from our resident Roberts cheer squad? In the other perspective, why do critics even care?
Where are you hiding your delorean ?
I'm afraid we're on the same page here, I've not looked at either version of the netcode either. Hate the stuff.
- - - Updated - - -
Parked it somewhere in the Amazon, can't remember where.
Technically, but it's probably the difference between "sun goes nova" and "heat death of the universe".
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
@Ben
Sometimes I wonder if you forget that you are posting here as a CIG employee and therefore you are projecting and representing CIG not only in meaning but also in form. I think we all appreciate that you have an FDEV past, but as of some time ago you are a fully fledged CIG employee and therefore it is difficult for many of us to appreciate your energetic posting here as truly balanced or unbiased. Especially when, even by own admission, you enter speculative territory outwith your specific field of expertise or area of influence/awareness in CIG.
You are obviously free to do whatever you very well please but in your place I would probably tend to ignore Smart claims and try to not repeat the same mistake that Chris Roberts made with that infamous letter to the Escapist by giving him any legitimacy. As a CIG employee I would recommend that you stick to factual and verifiable info and stay away from direct confrontation or speculative / unverifiable territory. Leave that speculation to us as simple thread patrons. Least we start considering that you, as Roberts, are simply trying to divert all Star Citizen development issues discussion and make it all a simplistic narrative about Smart being right or wrong.
I really hope you can enjoy your well deserved holidays away from work related or PR related discussions. I know I would. Just my 2p.
@Ben
Sometimes I wonder if you forget that you are posting here as a CIG employee and therefore you are projecting and representing CIG not only in meaning but also in form. I think we all appreciate that you have an FDEV past, but as of some time ago you are a fully fledged CIG employee and therefore it is difficult for many of us to appreciate your energetic posting here as truly balanced or unbiased. Especially when, even by own admission, you enter speculative territory outwith your specific field of expertise or area of influence/awareness in CIG.
You are obviously free to do whatever you very well please but in your place I would probably tend to ignore Smart claims and try to not repeat the same mistake that Chris Roberts made with that infamous letter to the Escapist by giving him any legitimacy. As a CIG employee I would recommend that you stick to factual and verifiable info and stay away from direct confrontation or speculative / unverifiable territory. Leave that speculation to us as simple thread patrons. Least we start considering that you, as Roberts, are simply trying to divert all Star Citizen development issues discussion and make it all a simplistic narrative about Smart being right or wrong.
I really hope you can enjoy your well deserved holidays away from work related or PR related discussions. I know I would. Just my 2p.
Last edited:
Network improvements are visible right now in 2.6 wich imply that some kind of switch on LY is allready appear and this was a good move as CIG could not make a stable version of SM and it was delayed mostly because of the network issues in their so called StarEngine.....for god sake even AC with just a few ppl. online was a painfull to play,don´t get me wrong nothing is perfect now but it is CLEARLY better.....
Last edited:
But it's not incompatible with the new sugar is the point...
So, to summarise: there was a massive discussion to find out that the Lumberyard changes aren't in CIG's current code, and it's possible that they will never be integrated?
Don't worry, I will never make out that any narrative is simplistic.
I fully accept that Mr Smart being wrong doesn't really affect the status of development, but if he shows up somewhere that I am, saying things that are wrong, I'm going to say that he's wrong. I try to stick to verifiables but when it comes to shoving words in the mouths of "all game developers" or "anyone in the industry" or whatever, just disagreeing with him is, effectively, a verifiable counter argument.
- - - Updated - - -
Yep, and apparently this switch was all the bad news that Smart was gleefully gloating over for months, so I guess we're in the clear?
Ben is one of us man. Let's not chase him off. I agree I would hate for some "gotcha" line of discussion to get Ben into hot water with his bosses but it's great to have someone who knows development here that isn't anti-SC. It's the only way we can have anything resembling informed discussion, as SC is very much a game in development.
I wish we could have these kinds of conversations with people in charge of NetCode, in charge of ProcGen, in charge of Flight Mechanics, etc, but who other than our Ben would come here? They feel about as welcome here as any of us skeptics would feel on the Star Citizen forums. Maybe that's something we should change.
I'm afraid that CIG has 99 problems, but Lumberyard ain't one.
Edit: There will be no more edits of this post caused by "me no english" disease.
Last edited:
- Status