The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Jon93]

Sorry that makes no sense, you said it was a simple flight model, but then just said you dont know anything about it?

Which is it, because it sounds like you making assumptions based on ignorance?

I said that the physics wasn't as advanced. The flight model is just one aspect of that that often isn't too complex to begin with. As highlighted above, SC sports many different simulations that Infinity doesn't have. Different compartments playing in synergy, local physics grids within the ships, procedural damage models, etc. The last vids of Infinity I saw did not have any of these and its flight model didn't stand out from most other space sims.

 

[Prince Thrakkath]

So - where exactly is the "Do Not Agree" button

You have it if you go to download and install 2.4. People who visit the official website don't get a button and agree to it automatically apparently, no need for annoying buttons

 

[Toumal]

Hey I'm only telling what I've seeing, I understand what you are talking about but it has nothing to do with the new TOS because it has no effect on us. Not that part at least.

Where in the TOS does it state this?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Deleted some off topic posts.

When you access this thread you see this:

Greetings <Random Forum User>, please adhere to the following policies while participating in this thread. Failure to do so will result in moderation against your forums account.

- This thread is for the discussion of Star Citizen only.
- Any trolling, insulting, and/or badgering posts directed to fellow forum users will not be tolerated.
- Moderation will be dealt with by the Forum manager and volunteer moderators. There is no need to publically call for moderation. Simply report any posts for review by clicking the icon.
- Posting of offensive, degrading, or mocking images/media will not be tolerated.
- Excessive off-topic posts will be removed.

Please read, inwardly digest and then ensure your posts conform to it. Thank You.

 

[lysan]

I said that the physics wasn't as advanced. The flight model is just one aspect of that that often isn't too complex to begin with. As highlighted above, SC sports many different simulations that Infinity doesn't have. Different compartments playing in synergy, local physics grids within the ships, procedural damage models, etc. The last vids of Infinity I saw did not have any of these and its flight model didn't stand out from most other space sims.

You mean that totally bogus FM in SC? I'm sorry to inform you that its totally rigged, it doesn't actually simulate anything. Its all marketing and I'm fine with that, what I'm not fine with is the claim that its very advanced and "complex", because its not.

 

[Arkantes]

since it doesn't sport local physics grids with both walking around, driving, and flight elements.

Space Engineers does all that
No reason SC couldn't, given the proper team.

 

[Rolan]

Where in the TOS does it state this?

Third point(in red) in the VII.- Fundraising & Pledges:

Spoiler

Source:http://imgur.com/a/Ov1Tt

 

[Marcus]

I said that the physics wasn't as advanced. The flight model is just one aspect of that that often isn't too complex to begin with. As highlighted above, SC sports many different simulations that Infinity doesn't have. Different compartments playing in synergy, local physics grids within the ships, procedural damage models, etc. The last vids of Infinity I saw did not have any of these and its flight model didn't stand out from most other space sims.

No you said the flight mechanics were simple not the physics, to Quote you earlier ". Inf Battlescape is ships only and has very simple flight mechanics. So they're not comparable. No need to bring it up."

Given that you admitted your lack of knowledge of the game, then you dont have basis to make that claim. You didnt seem to know about the Newtonian flight for example.

Now your just moving the goalposts. Poor show old chap. Poor show. At least have the common courtesy of admitting your statement was wrong and/or poorly explained.

IBS doesnt have the walking around like SC does for sure, but that doesnt make its physics simple or really relate to the flight model in anyway.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The first 1-2 years of SC can barely be considered effective development with just a skeleton dev team. And again. Inf Battlescape is ships only and has very simple flight mechanics. So they're not comparable. No need to bring it up.



I take it then you aren't too familiar with Steam early access titles that are often just as broken. Line of Defense being a hilarious example... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7n29gEV18w

Interesting you compare SC with a game you cite as being "broken".

 

[Skizomeuh]

Except Infinity Battlescape isn't even close to the complexity of SC and it has been in development for way longer than SC has (over 8 years). So this is irrelevant as well.

Except SC neither isn't even close to the complexity aimed by CIG. Except foundations of I:B are already largely more solid than SC's because CIG don't find foundations to be capital for the development of such complex. Except I:B doesn't have the money and the people CIG has, yet they deliver more things than jpegs, clumsy pre-alpha that passed through nda alpha then limited access alpha, and community video full of auto-congratulations.

 

[Necronaught]

Wow I'm trying to download the 2.4 update and the updater is crashing. I dare not post this on the official forums for fear of being banned.

 

[lysan]

Interesting read, its was about time someone started to write about it.

There’s been a recent blow-up in the Star Citizen community regarding issues dealing with paying customers. It appears that in the old Zendesk customer support setup, the company was assigning labels to their customers based on their behavior, and many paying backers within the community were not pleased when they found out about it.

http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/0...-sees-customer-support-being-overhauled/4518/

 

[Jon93]

No you said the flight mechanics were simple not the physics, to Quote you earlier ". Inf Battlescape is ships only and has very simple flight mechanics. So they're not comparable. No need to bring it up."

Given that you admitted your lack of knowledge of the game, then you dont have basis to make that claim. You didnt seem to know about the Newtonian flight for example.

Now your just moving the goalposts. Poor show old chap. Poor show. At least have the common courtesy of admitting your statement was wrong and/or poorly explained.

IBS doesnt have the walking around like SC does for sure, but that doesnt make its physics simple or really relate to the flight model in anyway.

I misspoke. My point remains, SC is still much more complex in terms of overall physics, fidelity and features as should be obvious. That's the whole point of this and why they aren't comparable.

 

[Clawhammer]

I misspoke. My point remains, SC is still much more complex in terms of overall physics, fidelity and features as should be obvious. That's the whole point of this and why they aren't comparable.

+ + +

You are right

 

[Cmdr Cheese Wedge]

I'm a bit confused Jon93 didn't really explain what this complex local physics grid is all about?
Could someone please enlighten me?

I looked up a few youtube videos on "local physics grid" I got a lot of nebulous talky talky about how amazing it is but no real explanation on the actual tech involved.

Is this the revolution in pc gaming that CR has been talking about?

 

[Skizomeuh]

Lets not talk about complexity when they can't even manage to make a reliable <<USE>>.

 

[Backer42]

Wow I'm trying to download the 2.4 update and the updater is crashing. I dare not post this on the official forums for fear of being banned.

So you accepted the new ToS and waived all your rights?

 

[frostypaw]

Newtonian physics model doesn't translate to advanced. It can be as simple as it needs to. It can just model the gravitational pull of a planet and that's that. Nothing complex. I don't know the details of IB:s flight model so I won't comment further than that other than say that it obviously doesn't have the same complexity since it doesn't sport local physics grids with both walking around, driving, and flight elements.

Now I might sound a bit stupid here but could you explain to me how the local physics grid (read standard fps gravity bound internal level) has anything to do with the flight model?

I was under the impression that the flight model would rely on the external physics grid. It still seems a very strange claim when you say you know nothing of IB's flight model, yet you too must have seen the level of criticism of SC's flight model - could you explain how this all adds up for me?

 

[Zetta]

I'm a bit confused Jon93 didn't really explain what this complex local physics grid is all about?
Could someone please enlighten me?

I looked up a few youtube videos on "local physics grid" I got a lot of nebulous talky talky about how amazing it is but no real explanation on the actual tech involved.

Is this the revolution in pc gaming that CR has been talking about?

Think of it as nested zoning with zero transitions between each zone. It's quite clever tbh, no idea if other games have done similar things.

 

[PiLhEaD]

These new terms might as well just be an animated gif (with the watermark still showing) of a flashing siren and the words: WE ARE NEVER FINISHING THIS GAME AND ARE RUNNING OUT OF MONEY....

^^^ Every now and again a gem turns up, and here's the perfect example ^^^ have a bit'o'rep for giving me a good laugh!