How can a question be right? Admittedly I'm asking it over and over again because I can't get a simple answer. Not sure what's horrible about it. It beats the my alphas better than your alpha argument...
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
How can a question be right? Admittedly I'm asking it over and over again because I can't get a simple answer. Not sure what's horrible about it. It beats the my alphas better than your alpha argument...
I think both should be an available option.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
The "my ship is bigger" thing is good though as it shows that FD planned cleverly for space-legs by making their ships big enough to avoid the whole toilet in the corridor problem.
It accept that as an answer.
I'm quite interested in the ship sizes especially how small some of the large looking SC ships are.
Space ships should be colossal.
Edit: or tiny. I'm talking rubbish.
Last edited:
And as has been explained already, yes it is at a level of flight sim complexity. If you think I'm talking about the flight model you're wrong. If you think I'm comparing the games then perhaps you should do some elementary research into game design and programming to see why you're off base here.
Complex flight sims are made in less that 4 years LMAO!
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Aaaaaaand with that one simple sentence you've disqualified yourself from having an opinion on anything games design related until you go and do the necessary reading to bring you up to speed. Some of us here get what the innovative parts are, they're there, go find 'em
Stupid question that I have to ask again: What is "fidelity" in relation to?
Graphics?
Or more?
Graphics?
Or more?
Graphics
eg. polygon count, texture quality, lighting physics, shading quality
Maybe ship physics simulations if you're pushing it. But no more than that.
NOT thruster technology, or solar system size, or planetary gravity, or shielding/structural integrity (why it's perfectly plausible to have small spaceships), or all the other things that are strawmanned regularly in here.
It's a sci-fi space game.
Last edited:
Cheers.
Then, pet grumble, why don't people just talk about "graphical detail" as opposed to attaching some semi-mystical meaning to the word "fidelity". It annoys me because using "fidelity" as a buzzword has zero meaning without being linked *to* something else.
Yes, I am be pedantic, I fully admit it, but I've seen the word being thrown around in different contexts.
TBH they have a lot further to go with this.
By implication, though, if graphical accuracy is the prime goal with maybe ship physics, this takes us a hell of a long way from SC being a "sim(ulation)". All of this magic O2 level in rooms and other nonsense is not covered.
However, thanks for clarifying what fidelity means when you use it! Now if everyone else - including CIG - can define it that would be lovely.
Last edited:
Interview with CR, saying 'they are getting to the content stage'.
[video=youtube;w9T48l7Oq0Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9T48l7Oq0Q&feature=youtu.be[/video]
[video=youtube;w9T48l7Oq0Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9T48l7Oq0Q&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Graphics, rules, simulation, peripherals. All due to a PC being more powerful. Simulation is the one star citizen isn't doing too good at.
Honestly, I just took a quick look at wiki.
Anyone can get high polygon counts etc at 15 FPS. As for 'fidelity' in ship physics simulation, SC doesn't come anywhere near the state of the art. It appears to me to not to even model rotational inertia.
Besides all that, there is not a single "patch" or whatever that RSI demonstrated so far, that proves that they can release the game-as-promised, for millions of players to play, managing capital ships, fighter squadrons, etc., in epic battles, pvp, org vs. orgs, etc. All these basic mechanics, in high fidelity (10x better than any other AAA game).
People sometimes loses the big picture and that's exactly what RSI is trying to do, in fact, been successful on that, at least considering the perspective/perception of the online followers, as I have been noticing.
The fans are kind of singing "victory" over another tech demo/prototype to be released in no less than 6 months, probably, in the top of another lame tech demo that they have in their hands. And that is advertised to be just one system out of 100 promised.
The entire game should have 100+ and be released two years ago, with all those basic mechanics/features that I stated in my first paragraph. And that was with a lot less money. Now, with a lot more money, ridiculously more money, where was said that more money would bring the core of the game earlier, or that would add more "content", people are getting ridiculously LESS content, less mechanics, less everything and features that were part of the basics, and hyped in their advertising or in all their earlier Wingman's Hangar shows, have been already the victims of the feature creep, like the campaign coop, like the player-managed private servers, VR and possibly others. And... getting even this 'nothing' compared to what was originally promised, later.... YEARS later.
It amazes me how people lost the perspective and didn't hold them accountable. They are in extreme debt, making followers and press as fools, but still get the benefit of the doubt apparently, and those who look objectively to all that, are going to be called as "radical".
Right now, everyone knows that possibly by half 2017, they only will have released 1 system, certainly in pre-pre-pre-alpha tech demo status, with a few basic mechanics of the core of the game (maybe) and just features that are just a try to stay side-by-side with competitors in some form to appear in the news than actually provide what the backers paid for originally (more a marketing tool at this point than real benefit to the deliver the project on or before the estimated delivery date, that was the deal).
In fact, this whole thing only will help them to have more excuses to delay even more everything, which positively impact their plan to keep ship sales and JPEG sales for a lot lot longer (more time, means more money directly going to the pockets of the main execs of this project through paychecks/bonus, etc.). And as more people lose the perception/perspective of the big picture, praising working ladders and helmet animations, or considering what they are yet to do, prove of anything, while that in fact, proves nothing, and instead just keep people busy, feeding the "hoping for what comes next" ponzi-like scheme, better for their personal financials... and obviously, terrible for the project/game/company as a whole, but they don't care, after all, they know that are just sustaining a project that they know for a while that can pull of, in any form that was promised.
tl;dr: Their strategy is just making it take longer as possible to keep the ponzi-like scheme of ship/trinket sales, while making people lose the perception and perspective of the whole, of what was promised, surprinsingly for a lot less money they have, becoming satisfied by whatever comes out. The contrary happened. More money would mean a faster release with more content. What they are delivering is less content in a lot more time, while original features got removed.
IT's like "well, at least we got this instead nothing and look, we didn't get what was promised, but there is this "groundbreaking" empty planet that we can fight not our friends online, not orgs online, not NPC's, but bugs, because Bug Hunting weekly show made me believe that this is the most fun thing that I can do with a game"... "and it's better than Line of Defense, so we are happy".
Good for Roberts financials that they have been able to brainwash the followers so easily, and in fact, even the employees. Even the "doubters" I noticed saying online that if they "release this demo" would be like "Yeah! They proven all the critics wrong and delivered". Best case scenario, prepare to stay with this one system, broken as hell, and barebones of mechanics, for many many years, while they never stop to milk you all in all possible ways that they figure out. Each new day, the game-as-promised is forgot. Good for Roberts and co.
Last edited:
By who? Random fanboys? Fanatical critics? It's meaning is fine when you put it in the context of what CIG talks about when using it. CIG can't be held accountable when the imaginority doesn't pay attention to what CIG is actually talking about and instead decides to purposely misconstrue what they're actually promising.
All SC has ever claimed to be is a 'Space Sim'.
The X-Wing and TIE Fighter series are space sims. The Wing Commander series was a space sim. Freespace is a space sim.
They are not claiming to be a hardcore simulation game like Falcon or MS Flight Simulator.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Clearly.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
There is no way you can tell that by 'appearance'.
Just because it doesn't 'feel' like there is inertia doesn't mean that it isn't there. They are not using current real world thruster technologies or fuels and have never claimed to. It's a dang sci-fi space game with artificial gravity. If you can't get over that, then you're screwed.
Now whether you think the thrusters being that powerful make it unfun and not feel right is another matter entirely.
That's obviously not what they're aiming for. [wacko]
Last edited:
What worries me a bit- trying to be as Objective as possible is that even in its clean form ED alpha still took nearly a full year to develop in BEta first and relesaed product afterwards.
Now- SC has less than four month to implement all we've seen in this GamesCon into SC42. Or it isn't being released within 2016?
Actually my real HONEST question now is- is there any rough release date for any of the SC products? I lost track of them in all this mess of Frames,ALphas,whatnot...
Now- SC has less than four month to implement all we've seen in this GamesCon into SC42. Or it isn't being released within 2016?
Actually my real HONEST question now is- is there any rough release date for any of the SC products? I lost track of them in all this mess of Frames,ALphas,whatnot...
Moody!
Go buy a fish tank. In real life.
Last edited:
I prefer the star citizen fish taken. It's got more flounder.
CMDR_Orlando
Banned
Every game has to "kiss realism goodbye" in one way or another, being it for gameplay reasons (fun factor) vs engine/budget/time limitations.
It is groundbreaking with CryEngine, it has never been done before with that engine or any other for that matter a seamless world so big while still keeping that kind of detail and "fidelity".
That's why it got so much coverage, because it was a gameplay experience that people had not seen before with any other game.
I'm talking about the different systems they've shown off and their interactions. None of them — individually or as a whole — come off remotely as complex as a proper flight sim, which goes beyond just a flight model and into the systems designs, the campaign, the AI, any potential interconnectivity etc.
Falcon series.
Good. Then you can answer a fairly simple question: what innovative parts are there to SC or SQ42?Aaaaaaand with that one simple sentence you've disqualified yourself from having an opinion on anything games design related until you go and do the necessary reading to bring you up to speed. Some of us here get what the innovative parts are, they're there, go find 'em
They're really not sims, though. They're arcade shooters that happen to take place in a space opera world.
Sure you can. You simply look at how the ships spin when asked to rotate. Do they have ramp-up and ramp-down times that are consistent with their apparent mass? Do they seem like they're being affected by actual forces or by just having a constant rotation applied? Are there any visible physical effects to these accelerations or do they just happen?
Most importantly: does it differ from one ship to the next? Because if all you ever do is give ships the ability to rotate in such a way that inertia is never a factor, then it would be pretty stupid to simulate that inertia to begin with. If the system is there just to always be made irrelevant, then it shouldn't be there to begin with.
FWIW I asked a couple of AAA devs the other day about rebuilding/changing an engine in mid-stream and their responses were:
So for me they get a pass for a while longer to see if this re-build of the engine and net code works. Will have to keep an eye out to see if they make comments about this coming into the live builds. If they do and it still sucks, then I think we can start hammering nails in the coffin.
So for me they get a pass for a while longer to see if this re-build of the engine and net code works. Will have to keep an eye out to see if they make comments about this coming into the live builds. If they do and it still sucks, then I think we can start hammering nails in the coffin.
- Status