The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Why so angry? VR it's not a priority, the stretch goal was VR in Hangar module, that's it. Yes Cryengine is being updated with much better VR support. And those updates will then be integrated into StarEngine. That's the plan, let Crytek do their stuff and then grab the interesting bits and add them to Star Citizen.
Changing UI's, animations etc is easy peazy stuff compared with what they've done already. There's no point in integrating it now because there is still a lot of stuff being added to the engine.
Changing UI's, animations etc is easy peazy stuff compared with what they've done already. There's no point in integrating it now because there is still a lot of stuff being added to the engine.
Oh yeah there is few good things about the SC mostly shiny GFX and some cool art no doubt but that doesn't change the overall gaming experience at all....I will almost dare to said that SC reminds me on Sandi G. career she to looks nice&fancy but her acting is just below horrible by all standards......./except in the "Fired Alive" she was awesome in there in case you guys missed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKFK9QMQZvk
Last edited:
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
*Mod hat off
I particularly like how this one below in particular shows the weight of maneuvering in the dogfight gameplay. As chance may have it the encounter is between 2 ships both carrying fixed weapons and it therefore highlights even more clearly the concepts of proper piloting and positioning. Furthermore the duel is between two diametrically opposed ships: A small, lightly armed and more nimble Sidewinder against a much more devastating but clumsier Anaconda.
The Anaconda duel starts at around the 6 minutes mark:
[video=youtube;SWp3hCJAOtA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWp3hCJAOtA[/video]
Bringing this back to the thread topic and Neo´s question about what we think in general about SC a few posts back, as a dual backer I personally am in the "hopeful" group, but with a very acute awarenes that the actual product will be nowhere near all the hype and promises, stretch goals etc made to date. One of the main reasons that made me start wondering about the results of the development was precisely the flight model and the controller issues. Something I feel FDEV nail from the start and that Isinona´s videos show thoroughly well; and where CIG, 2 years after release of AC, is still struggling with.
So much has been cancelled or cut out already to remain blind to the simple fact that most games developed and released out there will only deliver a fraction of what was hyped and thought of in the beginnings, and where Elite itself is not an exception (I still remember the 2014 mid summer discussions about if the whole DDF would make it into the game at release or not...).
It is actually quite interesting to see how two games that started out under very different commercial and development premises seem slowly but surely coming down to a much more similar profile. SC subscriber PTU monetization for testing is just a step closer of what FDEV did from day 1 by charging extra for access to alphas and betas. And the recent CR statements about releasing an MVP from where to build the game on take SC away from the previous promises as a "be all end all", BDSSE and PC saviour (upon release) and bring it that much closer to a concept not too dissimilar to what FDEV planed for the game, i.e. release the main components of the core experience (in the case of Elite the stellar forge and main aspects of cabin and flight simulation) and build from there.
Elite released and its very own MVP hold enough water to allow for the Horizons expansion and a release in Xbox. To date it all points out to upcoming seasons aswell.
SC in contrast is still very much an unknown, and given all the delays, broken promises and technical difficulties CIG seems to be having, the only way to see if it will work in the end is only by seeing a delivery of officially and commercially launched products. SQ42 promised for 2016 will be the first test. I am afraid that no buggy alphas, betas, cinematic trailers, pupil to planet non playable demos and 104TCs are going to cut it anymore, at least for me. Funds will not be coming in for ever.
I particularly like how this one below in particular shows the weight of maneuvering in the dogfight gameplay. As chance may have it the encounter is between 2 ships both carrying fixed weapons and it therefore highlights even more clearly the concepts of proper piloting and positioning. Furthermore the duel is between two diametrically opposed ships: A small, lightly armed and more nimble Sidewinder against a much more devastating but clumsier Anaconda.
The Anaconda duel starts at around the 6 minutes mark:
[video=youtube;SWp3hCJAOtA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWp3hCJAOtA[/video]
Bringing this back to the thread topic and Neo´s question about what we think in general about SC a few posts back, as a dual backer I personally am in the "hopeful" group, but with a very acute awarenes that the actual product will be nowhere near all the hype and promises, stretch goals etc made to date. One of the main reasons that made me start wondering about the results of the development was precisely the flight model and the controller issues. Something I feel FDEV nail from the start and that Isinona´s videos show thoroughly well; and where CIG, 2 years after release of AC, is still struggling with.
So much has been cancelled or cut out already to remain blind to the simple fact that most games developed and released out there will only deliver a fraction of what was hyped and thought of in the beginnings, and where Elite itself is not an exception (I still remember the 2014 mid summer discussions about if the whole DDF would make it into the game at release or not...).
It is actually quite interesting to see how two games that started out under very different commercial and development premises seem slowly but surely coming down to a much more similar profile. SC subscriber PTU monetization for testing is just a step closer of what FDEV did from day 1 by charging extra for access to alphas and betas. And the recent CR statements about releasing an MVP from where to build the game on take SC away from the previous promises as a "be all end all", BDSSE and PC saviour (upon release) and bring it that much closer to a concept not too dissimilar to what FDEV planed for the game, i.e. release the main components of the core experience (in the case of Elite the stellar forge and main aspects of cabin and flight simulation) and build from there.
Elite released and its very own MVP hold enough water to allow for the Horizons expansion and a release in Xbox. To date it all points out to upcoming seasons aswell.
SC in contrast is still very much an unknown, and given all the delays, broken promises and technical difficulties CIG seems to be having, the only way to see if it will work in the end is only by seeing a delivery of officially and commercially launched products. SQ42 promised for 2016 will be the first test. I am afraid that no buggy alphas, betas, cinematic trailers, pupil to planet non playable demos and 104TCs are going to cut it anymore, at least for me. Funds will not be coming in for ever.
Last edited:
The section on VR I quoted was not the hangar stretch goal. The Kickstarter itself promises VR support for SC and S42, and THAT'S IT.
I'm angry because he raised money talking a big VR game, appearing with Palmer Luckey at SXSW to tout it - I gave him money, and YEARS LATER as the headsets begin to come out, where is Star Citizen? Waving hands, mumbling about reprioritizing, with increasingly fanciful defenses of their missing the boat from the fans. I'm angry because I've worked on VR stuff extensively over the past few years and go nearly apoplectic at "developers" like Ben Lesnick pontificating about a subject he knows nothing about, and having that ignorance parroted by fans who don't understand the subject either but since CIG isn't supporting it, assume it's not ready. Heaven forbid CR made a mistake, right? It's VR's fault. Bad, bad VR!
I'm angry because I feel taken advantage of and didn't see it coming.
Uh, no. CryEngine was already updated to "much better VR support" many months ago, in the release AFTER CIG said was the cutoff. StarEngine isn't a real thing no matter how many times a few fans think it is, it's just modded CryEngine 3 and hopelessly forked and outdated by now. They can't simply add in the updated CryEngine VR code by hitting control-V. StarEngine! Ha. Listen, despite how amazing they make it sound - modding the engine is what you DO when you make a game. It's standard. It's why you get a license and have access to the source code, to make it fit your project. Extensive modding is the order of the day for a game project that isn't a tutorial, and under the terms of their license it will be marketed and presented as a CryEngine game. Because that's what it uses. There is no such thing as "StarEngine." They just have an out of date version with mods.
Every year that passes, every blown deadline, every Citizencon that passes... makes it more and more out of date and forked from the current CryEngine. That's why they couldn't easily add the updated VR code.
Eazy peazy stuff? Have you EVER changed the UI of an existing game to work for VR? Where do you get off claiming that's a cakewalk? Of COURSE there's a point in integrating it now, they wouldn't have to THROW AWAY MONTHS AND MONTHS OF OUTDATED WORK when it came time to add VR support. They could develop it organically, they could SEE WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T. That's what you do when you want to BE on the cutting edge, instead of just incorporating it into some sales pitch. You want to lead? LEAD. You want to show those evil publishers a thing or two? Then do it, instead of talking about it. CR just talk-talk-talks about it and delivers broken garbage.
Some perfectionist.
You seriously think there was no advantage to Frontier working in VR support very very early in the development process? There's a reason why they've gotten so many raves about their VR support and it's one of the top experiences right now while Croberts babbles about refactoring and Germany. Kudos to Braben for listening to his devs and supporting their passion. Boo hiss to Roberts for ignoring VR enthusiasts like Jon Dadley who were chomping at the bit to work on VR! Instead he had to make his own stuff on the side. A shame Roberts didn't have faith in his own CIG engineers like you do!
Last edited:
Looks like confirmation and acknowledgement of the issue. Why else would you completely take down your CS interface?
Can anyone please give me a list of games that had no VR on launch day, but had VR added after launch. Thanks!
Not angry at VR not being a priority. It's another element of the long list of disappointments regarding promises, stretch goals, methodology and management.
Taken separately, most of points of discontentment wouldn't be that damageable, though I dare to say that for most of those disappointed by SC it's the sum of all the flaws that make the pill hard to swallow, and it becomes harder and harder with each passing month.
Don't underestimate the work needed to make a good VR experience. Don't underestimate the intricacy of interconnected bits that would need modifications to adapt SC to VR. It would be a long task, more difficult and longer the more SC modules will evolve with time. So yeah it's not their priority.
Last edited:
Car and flight sims where it's easier to bolt on and makes sense: PCars, Assetto Corsa, iRacing, LFS, DCS, War Thunder. It's taken them all a few years from the point of initial support to get the menus and UI working correctly, tho. But they are all doing it and realize how VR from here on in is almost required in sims. We'll have more resolution soon enough, but when you've got a HOTAS or a wheel setup... man, it's tough going back from that presence, immersion, and headtracking.
Also simple tabletop stuff like Blazerush and Legend of Dungeon.
Something with an FPS component? Not so much. You have things like Alien: Isolation or Dying Light that planned on VR, then realized they couldn't make it a GOOD experience so just dropped it and left it as an undocumented mode and gave up on VR officially added later. Valve attempted experiments with HL2 and TF2 but even they couldn't make it work to their satisfaction and quietly dropped it too. And that's VALVE. They had a huge interest in making it work. Carmack threw a big chunk of his brain at Minecraft for a year and a half, and all the press on it still mentions people being sick. The Gear VR version he suggests you use with a swivel chair is out but the Rift version is still being tweaked, no doubt due to all those articles mentioning ginger treats and sim sickness.
Nothing done on CryEngine 3 that I can think of.
It's relatively easy to just switch things to 3D rendering and make the camera work for VR. Much harder is all the UI, animation changes, reworking the menus, removing all the graphical tricks engines use to cut corners that don't work in 3D, problems of world scale that work in 2d but look utterly wrong in VR, and solving sim sickness issues with locomotion.
CIG has done ZERO of that. They don't have anybody working on it and haven't planned for VR support considering the implementation of the UI and those awful animations.
That doesn't sound like they can deliver VR support to SC and S42 as planned. If Valve can't solve FPS locomotion, the crobber baron sure isn't going to. He should just TELL US. Not once have we had honest talk on the subject. Just promises, dancing around the rude reality of it. They aren't being honest with us... what else is new.
The only VR support these tech demos will ever have is via VorpX for the iron-stomached.
Last edited:
While I've been reasonably excited at the prospect of a new Roberts space game since the Kickstarter. The thought of downloading the latest update now feels me with dread. I find that watching videos on YT a far better use of my time and give me a reasonably idea of how the project is progressing. I'm still bullish enough about SC to believe that enough money + enough time will result in some kind of deliverable but they sure have their work cut out for them. I'm not happy that they can no longer give any indication of time scale - I'm a realist, I don't care about delays but I care about targets, mile-stones and intentions. I suspect we'll see a launch of the first bit of SQ42 and it *should* resemble some sort of quality gaming experience, the small amount that they have shown looked good enough and they've had some really talented individuals at Foundry 42 and a good sized team for some time. The sum of their work must amount to something eventually.
I'm going to remain an interested backer albeit a slightly cynical one waiting to be re-converted at the thought of something substantial worth downloading in the Alpha. At this stage what's available feels opaque to me. My character stands-up and walks to a panel, chooses a ship it doesn't feel like I own. It arrives, I get in then there are a few locations I can quantum-drive over to and listen to an audio-book or push some buttons. There are a few OK pew-pew moments and that's it really, admire some of the slow loading textures crash to desktop. The multi-player stuff is there if you've invested enough. The tutorial is still broken and pretty much everything that's being shown feels hefty and perhaps overly complicated. I do appreciate the challenges these developers have on their hands, but that's all the more reason to approach these proposals with caution rather than boasting about what you can achieve three years before you do.
Unlike others in this thread I don't think SC lives and dies by it's FM or realism. I'm expecting a space adventure extravaganza with lots of set-pieces and jaw dropping moments, It doesn't have to be the best simulation experience (the Wing Commander series got away with that fine). What's been delivered feels a bit like a very ambitious Arma mod. I keep hearing how it's all "coming together now" but it feels a long way off and subsequent updates aren't pulling it together anytime soon. I'll keep watching how it unfolds but I certainly don't see why SC should be immune to some serious criticism now considering it's crowd funded so successfully and since first hearing about it enough time has passed that babies have been conceived, learned to talk/walk and are now ready to buy their first package. they need to start showing elements that hold up really well on their own merits, give us an indication of release and demonstrate a realistic long term funding strategy, do away with the P2W ships.
I'm going to remain an interested backer albeit a slightly cynical one waiting to be re-converted at the thought of something substantial worth downloading in the Alpha. At this stage what's available feels opaque to me. My character stands-up and walks to a panel, chooses a ship it doesn't feel like I own. It arrives, I get in then there are a few locations I can quantum-drive over to and listen to an audio-book or push some buttons. There are a few OK pew-pew moments and that's it really, admire some of the slow loading textures crash to desktop. The multi-player stuff is there if you've invested enough. The tutorial is still broken and pretty much everything that's being shown feels hefty and perhaps overly complicated. I do appreciate the challenges these developers have on their hands, but that's all the more reason to approach these proposals with caution rather than boasting about what you can achieve three years before you do.
Unlike others in this thread I don't think SC lives and dies by it's FM or realism. I'm expecting a space adventure extravaganza with lots of set-pieces and jaw dropping moments, It doesn't have to be the best simulation experience (the Wing Commander series got away with that fine). What's been delivered feels a bit like a very ambitious Arma mod. I keep hearing how it's all "coming together now" but it feels a long way off and subsequent updates aren't pulling it together anytime soon. I'll keep watching how it unfolds but I certainly don't see why SC should be immune to some serious criticism now considering it's crowd funded so successfully and since first hearing about it enough time has passed that babies have been conceived, learned to talk/walk and are now ready to buy their first package. they need to start showing elements that hold up really well on their own merits, give us an indication of release and demonstrate a realistic long term funding strategy, do away with the P2W ships.
Well said, while I don't agree 100% with the opinion I certainly applaud it for being a well reasoned post about the game.
Mu77ley
Volunteer Moderator
There you go again, assuming that a lot of us aren't backers, and aren't playing it.
I've been a backer since before the Kickstarter, and have played every single release since the first hangar module, and including several PTU releases (although, with 2.4 I no longer have PTU access for some reason).
There's a lot of complexity in the flight control scheme, but because of the simplistic point and shoot flight model absolutely none of them are required in any way. Just full throttles and then mouse aim/shoot is all that's required to beat ANY opponent extremely easily (AI or human).
Last edited:
I don't have a list, but from recent experience I can tell you I was positively surprised that Boardgame Simulator added VR support post-factum, and it works great. As others said before me however, there's way, WAY more to adding VR than just getting stereo rendering going.
Yes must be fake... http://archive.is/L2G1k
Also a screenshot of my own request https://i.gyazo.com/fa45370332c10b6911513aa7b08ef66a.png
Must be fake right?
Last edited:
That's the thing with most people defending the current state of SC: "You didn't play it!"
Ugh.
Try opening up through mobile. Still works.
yes, tabletop stuff really translates well! Tabletop Simulator really lends itself to the Vive controllers. It'd be great to use a similar interface for a Populous type game... I need little monsters wrecking havoc on a tabletop world!
A shame CR was so shortsighted about VR. This is where actually being a visionary instead of merely having it on your business card would've helped.
Last edited:
- Status