The Star Citizen Thread v5

[Insignificant_The_Galaxy_Cat]

Cool, i got to that Grim Hex place, thats just astonishingly nicely made, the immersion there is unbelievable and although im not into pirating, id rather live there than in very clinical AscCorp.

Ahh, easily pleased then I see.

 

[darkoff]

There's lot to complain about SC - and lot to complain about ED. Last time I checked everyone here is perfectly fine to see ED ridiculed - yes, we will argue back but we don't call for open bans. So no, it is not just as bad. Having your favorite game dissed doesn't mean there aren't positive comments here - in fact all of them are welcomed if they wouldn't get so banned quickly (usually by attacking messenger from other side). Ok, some of that 'positive messaging' feels openly grassrooting, but it is neither banned or any way limited on FD forums.

Every time we want to find something positive in what's happening in SC world all we see is lies, deceit, and sleazy marketing. Game mechanics? Not yet, hard to discuss them. Virtual assets? You can get better overviews elsewhere, threads aren't really for that. Some of regular posters have posted their 2.6 reviews, some of them positive, some of them negative. We discussed them. Why we go back at ridicule? Hard to say. Maybe we are allergic to marketing? Because game alone is nothing much to talk about yet.

Im fairly certain its because of ludicrous claim's and missed dates.

for example CIG claims that they had been planning for a switch for over a year
and at same time they claim 2 engineers ported star-engine (50% modified cry engine) into lumberyard in 1-2 days

Heres parts where i think their code would conflict:
cryengine version differences =relatively easy to solve (maybe)
lumberyard code to star engine or vice versa = mess

lets say they import a feature from lumberyard for example networking
that networking function calls something else as requirement for example some cloud canvas bits
so now they have to import cloud canvas support into engine.
that cloud canvas bit then calls upon parts of lumberyard memory manager and the cycle continues almost forever, until it calls upon cry engine code that functions differently in star engine.

^above example is just about the concept of porting. I dont know if the networking code has dependencies on cloud canvas,
but i call bull on porting star engine into lumberyard in 2 days.

 

[Ben Parry]

Im fairly certain its because of ludicrous claim's and missed dates.

for example CIG claims that they had been planning for a switch for over a year
and at same time they claim 2 engineers ported star-engine (50% modified cry engine) into lumberyard in 1-2 days

Heres parts where i think their code would conflict:
cryengine version differences =relatively easy to solve (maybe)
lumberyard code to star engine or vice versa = mess

lets say they import a feature from lumberyard for example networking
that networking function calls something else as requirement for example some cloud canvas bits
so now they have to import cloud canvas support into engine.
that cloud canvas bit then calls upon parts of lumberyard memory manager and the cycle continues almost forever, until it calls upon cry engine code that functions differently in star engine.

^above example is just about the concept of porting. I dont know if the networking code has dependencies on cloud canvas,
but i call bull on porting star engine into lumberyard in 2 days.

True, once you start pulling in features you're going to have to look at what the feature talks to, rewriting bits of how it talks to systems you've modified etc. But until you do that, 2 days isn't unreasonable at all. As I said before, it's just swapping one untouched buffet for another. Also you have to change some copyright notices over.

 

[Ian Skippy]

True, once you start pulling in features you're going to have to look at what the feature talks to, rewriting bits of how it talks to systems you've modified etc. But until you do that, 2 days isn't unreasonable at all. As I said before, it's just swapping one untouched buffet for another. Also you have to change some copyright notices over.

Ha, got you! Be honest, that wasnt included in the two days was it?

 

[Toumal]

True, once you start pulling in features you're going to have to look at what the feature talks to, rewriting bits of how it talks to systems you've modified etc. But until you do that, 2 days isn't unreasonable at all. As I said before, it's just swapping one untouched buffet for another. Also you have to change some copyright notices over.

Mmm sure, if you have good test coverage. Also depends on the level of modification that you had, and how much Lumberyard differs from stock CE. They currently list over 400 improvements and feature additions.

 

[DLewth]

Mmm sure, if you have good test coverage. Also depends on the level of modification that you had, and how much Lumberyard differs from stock CE. They currently list over 400 improvements and feature additions.

But, if they're any good, they've added these features without breaking the existing ones. The same way you can upgrade your OS without your programs breaking (Disclaimer: I usually run Linux - Your mileage may vary. )

 

[Dr Wookie]

So is Lumberyard 64 bit out of the box?

So I'm not wrong, VR Support wasn't cancelled, just because the state of the game isint suited for VR now it doesn't mean it will never be
Besides they can add VR Support for Arena Commander where you don't even move in FPS or they can alter the camera to 3rd person whenever you have animations, or they can work the animations to better suit VR, It's in the OPEN, no problem is a dead end lol . Like I said before just because it doesn't seem possible now doesn't mean it will never be. Problems exist to be solved and they have professionals that earn their wages by solving those problems so no, VR is not ditched until they officially say that is ditched. Same as private forums and Modding tools.

I tried VR in 0.8 with DK1, wow what a mess that was, my feet ended up inside my helmet !

I have a couple of new reasons why VR is not a good fit for SC, not attacking you but just my point of view.

1) One of the fundamental tenets of CR's vision has been extremely high detail; that simply isn't possible with existing VR. Time is a double edged sword here; certainly it will get more and more feasible over time, as computing power increases, but also more competitors will crowd the market, making it harder for SC to stand out.

2)All of those fixed perspective cockpits would need to be remodelled in order to convey the spatial relationships of each cockpi element. As far as I recall, the only ED cockpit around when DK1 support was added in alpha 1.1 was a rough version of the sidewinder. As a result, VR integration was much less of a headache than it would be for the dozens of ships already in SC

I just got a CV1 today, to go with the new pc that arrives tomorrow; even on my current pc, the sense of presence and scale is incredible, at the sacrifice of the finest detail. The more "cartoony" art direction of ED is a much better fit for VR than the exquisitely detailed SC

 

[Moonax IRL]

So I'm not wrong, VR Support wasn't cancelled, just because the state of the game isint suited for VR now it doesn't mean it will never be
Besides they can add VR Support for Arena Commander where you don't even move in FPS or they can alter the camera to 3rd person whenever you have animations, or they can work the animations to better suit VR, It's in the OPEN, no problem is a dead end lol . Like I said before just because it doesn't seem possible now doesn't mean it will never be. Problems exist to be solved and they have professionals that earn their wages by solving those problems so no, VR is not ditched until they officially say that is ditched. Same as private forums and Modding tools.

You might chuck in Time Travel on that problem solving list for the Master Chris, what simplistic waffle.

 

[Maruun]

I tried VR in 0.8 with DK1, wow what a mess that was, my feet ended up inside my helmet !

I have a couple of new reasons why VR is not a good fit for SC, not attacking you but just my point of view.

1) One of the fundamental tenets of CR's vision has been extremely high detail; that simply isn't possible with existing VR. Time is a double edged sword here; certainly it will get more and more feasible over time, as computing power increases, but also more competitors will crowd the market, making it harder for SC to stand out.

2)All of those fixed perspective cockpits would need to be remodelled in order to convey the spatial relationships of each cockpi element. As far as I recall, the only ED cockpit around when DK1 support was added in alpha 1.1 was a rough version of the sidewinder. As a result, VR integration was much less of a headache than it would be for the dozens of ships already in SC

I just got a CV1 today, to go with the new pc that arrives tomorrow; even on my current pc, the sense of presence and scale is incredible, at the sacrifice of the finest detail. The more "cartoony" art direction of ED is a much better fit for VR than the exquisitely detailed SC

Wait wait waiiiit! I thought its just...

for VR to be doable and engaging...atleast thats what several SC-Fans implied the past year...

 

[milligna]

for VR to be doable and engaging...atleast thats what several SC-Fans implied the past year...

Quoting no less than that great developer and VR pioneer, Ben Lesnick. Who can't develop, program, nor even see 3D but is an expert on VR worth parroting.

 

[Maruun]

Quoting no less than that great developer and VR pioneer, Ben Lesnick. Who can't develop, program, nor even see 3D but is an expert on VR worth parroting.

Atleast sofar they were able to creat a switch for lolzbuckets to be filled...but they have a real problem getting it on reverse. I wonder when the supply of buckets runs out and the lolz will be all over the floor....

 

[Komemiute]

So, if I get this straight... SC got a new engine- which is not because it's still CE but older but different- and now everything is going to be fine?
I see.

It's not like this automagically makes it having "solid technical foundation". Or makes up for the lost time. Or burnt money. Or missing feature. Or broken promises. Or Kickstarter rewards.

It's just a change of engine.
"Just", right.

Ok- let's see what March 2017 brings.

 

[Ben Parry]

Mmm sure, if you have good test coverage. Also depends on the level of modification that you had, and how much Lumberyard differs from stock CE. They currently list over 400 improvements and feature additions.

Which part are you replying to there?
Until you take the modifications, it doesn't matter if there's 4 or 400, you can switch engine with only a change to the copyright notices, and whatever test coverage you feel like.
Once you start taking those improvements and features, yeah, you're going to need testers, same as you would have needed when you took changes from CE5, same as you'd need when you write changes yourself.

Edit to add: Though for all I know, they already took the networking parts they wanted in that 2-day budget and it just went really smooth. Stranger things have happened.

 

[metatheurgist]

So you can't pay your employees wages, but you can invest $500m. Colour me confused. [???]

Works just like the CIG funding graph.

 

[GaryII]

So, if I get this straight... SC got a new engine- which is not because it's still CE but older but different- and now everything is going to be fine?

Beta engine, Pre-alfa game what could possibly go wrong

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Which part are you replying to there?
Until you take the modifications, it doesn't matter if there's 4 or 400, you can switch engine with only a change to the copyright notices, and whatever test coverage you feel like.
Once you start taking those improvements and features, yeah, you're going to need testers, same as you would have needed when you took changes from CE5, same as you'd need when you write changes yourself.

Edit to add: Though for all I know, they already took the networking parts they wanted in that 2-day budget and it just went really smooth. Stranger things have happened.

So they just took base. Basically they haven't moved or used those improvements and if they will try they will most likely run into actual problems.

As for networking if they are just drop replace things then I might even believe you. That means though it is not something unique and core for SC then.

 

[GaryII]

2)All of those fixed perspective cockpits would need to be remodelled in order to convey the spatial relationships of each cockpi element. As far as I recall, the only ED cockpit around when DK1 support was added in alpha 1.1 was a rough version of the sidewinder. As a result, VR integration was much less of a headache than it would be for the dozens of ships already in SC

You need to design game with VR support in mind - FD did it.
SC (game of everything) just can not support VR and even HOTAS support is debatable:
Because some components are just incompatible with VR like FPS (Star Marine) part and HOTAS

Imagine you are flying ship in VR and after landing you will take VR headset off switch from HOTAS to k/m or controller...good luck with that...

 

[DLewth]

So they just took base. Basically they haven't moved or used those improvements and if they will try they will most likely run into actual problems.

As for networking if they are just drop replace things then I might even believe you. That means though it is not something unique and core for SC then.

Bear in mind that so far, "unique and core to SC" is equivalent to "pants and doesn't work properly". Moving away from that is probably a good thing.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Bear in mind that so far, "unique and core to SC" is equivalent to "pants and doesn't work properly". Moving away from that is probably a good thing.

But there are some parts that unique and complex because well...that makes SC a game CIG wants it to be Those things don't go away.

Ok, Parry explanation gives more leverage to my understanding that engine switch isn't really a technical one. Just replace origin in GIT and assume for better.

Anyway, what Ben says is true, we already make much bigger deal than it is worth to discuss.

 

[DLewth]

But there are some parts that unique and complex because well...that makes SC a game CIG wants it to be Those things don't go away.

Ok, Parry explanation gives more leverage to my understanding that engine switch isn't really a technical one. Just replace origin in GIT and assume for better.

Anyway, what Ben says is true, we already make much bigger deal than it is worth to discuss.

Well it's kind of interesting from a 'hanging Crytek out to dry' angle, but in terms of technology it should be a quick fix with some good benefits (and therefore kind of a non-story).