The Star Citizen Thread v5

[1500]

“I can’t wait to read the part where they decide to either port to Unity5 or to Lumberyard, Amazon’s version of CryEngine4. Not to mention CryEngine5 which is more advanced/modern than CryEngine4.”

Yeah, so, you update fully to 3.7, then some subset of features gets pulled in from 3.8. From an artist's perspective, some stuff now works like 3.7, some stuff works like 3.8. Depending on the feature you're looking at, you're at 3.7 or 3.8.

- - - Updated - - -


People who discuss Lumberyard as if it's some kind of panacea are either ill-informed or arguing with a strawman. Maybe it's just... a good tech decision with some benefits to be had. Or, hey, a bad tech decision with some benefits to be had.

Oh I see, so all then ranting was about a post made back in April. Interesting how lots of people were not sure what it was based on. What an odd thing to focus on. Do you also then have a quote for lumberyard being based on CryEngine 5? You claim he inflated the number to make it more exciting. So when did he do that? I also want to get excited by a meaningless naming number and over inflating them. Like how CIG does this with 1.0, 2.0, 2.6 and such when it not even out of pre-alpha. But no CIG would never artificially inflate their numbers to make it look better then it is, 1.6 million people playing SC also agree.

 

[Maruun]

People who discuss Lumberyard as if it's some kind of panacea are either ill-informed or arguing with a strawman. Maybe it's just... a good tech decision with some benefits to be had. Or, hey, a bad tech decision with some benefits to be had.

Only time will tell...but from past experience as a couch developer with his beer in one hand...i have not much confidence that anything good will come out of it...just more buckets full of lolz.
I cant even get lower with my expectations at this point and CIG was able to impress me in many negative ways this year alone.

*looks into a mirror* pure frustration at this point.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Oh I see, so all then ranting was about a post made back in April. Interesting how lots of people were not sure what it was based on. What an odd thing to focus on. Do you also then have a quote for lumberyard being based on CryEngine 5? You claim he inflated the number to make it more exciting. So when did he do that? I also want to get excited by a meaningless naming number and over inflating them. Like how CIG does this with 1.0, 2.0, 2.6 and such when it not even out of pre-alpha. But no CIG would never artificially inflate their numbers to make it look better then it is, 1.6 million people playing SC also agree.

No, it was about a blog DS wrote and posted today. In that post, from today, he is factually wrong. Ben is pointing it out. Unless you are in some weird 'opposite-cult', just say "thanks for clearing that up, I guess DS isnt infallible either.".

 

[Ben Parry]

Oh I see, so all then ranting was about a post made back in April. Interesting how lots of people were not sure what it was based on. What an odd thing to focus on. Do you also then have a quote for lumberyard being based on CryEngine 5? I am you claim he inflated the number to make it more exciting. So when did he do that? I also want to get excited by a meaningless naming number. Like 2.0, 2.6 and such.

That quote is in the article he just dropped in here, he re-quotes it.
The five, is the link here:

I'd forgotten that they briefly removed the number, but he refers to SC as being based on CryEngine 3, when it's 3.7/3.8, so for consistency it makes sense to say Lumberyard is based on 3.8. Five is right out.

It kinda casts doubt on his 100% certain claims about everything else when he can't get basic information like this straight.
Do you have a link to the "all then ranting" I did about this? I feel like I mentioned it maybe twice, if you don't count replies to posts asking something about it.

 

[1500]

No, it was about a blog DS wrote and posted today. In that post, from today, he is factually wrong. Ben is pointing it out. Unless you are in some weird 'opposite-cult', just say "thanks for clearing that up, I guess DS isnt infallible either.".

You should read the blog, that was from a quote back in April. So yes he is complaining about something said in April and has been corrected in the current blog. There is nothing to clear up, you should really read the blog before commenting on information contained in it.

- - - Updated - - -

That quote is in the article he just dropped in here, he re-quotes it.
The five, is the link here:

It kinda casts doubt on his 100% certain claims about everything else when he can't get basic information like this straight.
Do you have a link to the "all then ranting" I did about this? I feel like I mentioned it maybe twice, if you don't count replies to posts asking something about it.

Yep he was wrong in that tweet (vacation and all), but you are responding to the blog, and he has it correct in the blog.

I already quoted it.

 

[Hi-Ban]

Do you also then have a quote for lumberyard being based on CryEngine 5?

I can help on that: https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/812478861296472064

Archive link of the tweet (just in case there are deletions): https://archive.is/LYmHb

 

[SlickReed]

Some great info here and good example how CIG are using modern day cockpit configs.

[video=youtube;xMoWaACdOs0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoWaACdOs0[/video]

 

[1500]

Some great info here and good example how CIG are using modern day cockpit configs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoWaACdOs0

SO much of that video is just wishful thinking about how it could be better in the future once it has been fixed.

I actually like a lot of the HUD design and cockpit designed from CIG, not so much from a playable or usability perspective, but more that having unique designs and such really sets the ships apart.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

One thing is for sure in my view and that is that CIG totally abandon their Star Engine and switch on something probably better......and when I said better I primarily mean on the networking part wich was the most troublesome in my opinion....

 

[Ben Parry]

Yep he was wrong in that tweet (vacation and all), but you are responding to the blog, and he has it correct in the blog.

I already quoted it.

Ah, you're quite right there, I think I missed it in my skim because of the clause about StarEngine in the middle of the sentence. I still reckon it casts doubt on his in-depth Lumberyard knowledge, but that's just like, my opinion, man.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing is for sure in my view and that is that CIG totally abandon their Star Engine and switch on something probably better......and when I said better I primarily mean on the networking part wich was the most troublesome in my opinion....

Would you be willing to take a bet? I'll give you 10:1.

 

[Dooguk]

Assuming CIG are referring to the volume of explorable space (and not a straight line ) then the dimensions of the Stanton map are somewhere in the region of:

• Volume = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000km³
• Z axis = 200,000km (previously announced)
• X & Y axis = 707,107,781km (or 4.73AU)

At these current sizes, a Star System will have a maximum radius of ~2.38AU. With the Solar System being ~50AU in radius (distance from Sol to the Kuiper Belt) it will need to be scaled down 20:1 to fit, or slightly less if Pluto is to be considered the outer-most planetary body (~39AU from Sol).

Space is no longer "big"

So, 100 Sextillion km = 1 'stem .

100 'stems = 1 'verse

Got it.

 

[Zyll Goliat]

Would you be willing to take a bet? I'll give you 10:1.

Explain pls.?What was the point then to switch on LY if their own engine was that good?How come we could not see ANY progress in networking for years and suddenlly as soon as they switch on LY we can see some obvious positive changes in 2.6?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Explain pls.?What was the point then to switch on LY if their own engine was that good?How come we could not see ANY progress in networking for years and suddenlly as soon as they switch on LY we can see some obvious positive changes in 2.6?

'Star Engine' is basically a modified CE3.x. There are two kinds of CE3.8, Crytek's and Amazon's. Star Engine switched from one to the other. They didn't abandon Star Engine as such, so I think ben assumed you were expecting them to drop CryEngine3.x all together in the future, which will never happen.

 

[1500]

'Star Engine' is basically a modified CE3.x. There are two kinds of CE3.8, Crytek's and Amazon's. Star Engine switched from one to the other. They didn't abandon Star Engine as such, so I think ben assumed you were expecting them to drop CryEngine3.x all together in the future, which will never happen.

But why switch? The only reason to switch is because Lumberyard does something better that their own code sucked at. And as Lumberyard basically only adds networking, and CIG's has been horrible, it is easy to assume it was for that. But Lumberyard is no more suited for an MMO then was Starengine, so CIG will still have to make their own networking code. So did they switch and are going to drop the MMO aspects of the game?

What exactly has CIG gained from switching to Lumberyard, you would think that an open development company like CIG would tell its backers this. Perhaps they are going to get back the AI code they broke?

 

[ianw]

It kinda casts doubt on his 100% certain claims about everything else when he can't get basic information like this straight.

Is this something we should apply equally to CR and CIG/RSI's proclamations/statements - specifically all the publicly documented stuff they said that somehow turned into something else or just didn't happen - or is it just the rule for judging the validity of Derek's comments/opinions/assertions?

 

[Ben Parry]

Explain pls.?What was the point then to switch on LY if their own engine was that good?How come we could not see ANY progress in networking for years and suddenlly as soon as they switch on LY we can see some obvious positive changes in 2.6?

'Star Engine' is basically a modified CE3.x. There are two kinds of CE3.8, Crytek's and Amazon's. Star Engine switched from one to the other. They didn't abandon Star Engine as such, so I think ben assumed you were expecting them to drop CryEngine3.x all together in the future, which will never happen.

Precisely. I can see some outside chance that the programming leads would decide to catch up fully to the current LY version (a very slim one), but "totally abandon their Star Engine and switch on something probably better"? That would be completely Sparta.

 

[Ian Skippy]

But why switch? The only reason to switch is because Lumberyard does something better that their own code sucked at. And as Lumberyard basically only adds networking, and CIG's has been horrible, it is easy to assume it was for that. But Lumberyard is no more suited for an MMO then was Starengine, so CIG will still have to make their own networking code. So did they switch and are going to drop the MMO aspects of the game?

What exactly has CIG gained from switching to Lumberyard, you would think that an open development company like CIG would tell its backers this. Perhaps they are going to get back the AI code they broke?

I have no idea, I assume Amazon's 3.x has something Crytek's 3.x doesnt have, and CIG wants it. It could very well be about basic networking functions. So even if they have to code a lot of stuff themselves, having some kind of 'easy' networking improvements sounds like a good thing.

 

[Zetta]

I think the switch is a good idea. It's not just about what LumberYard offers now but what will also be added in the future, and that's a damn sight more than CryTek were adding to the 3.x branch
How well Gamelyft works for them remains to be seen, but from my point of view I can't see any real downsides to the switch.

 

[Ben Parry]

Is this something we should apply equally to CR and CIG/RSI's proclamations/statements - specifically all the publicly documented stuff they said that somehow turned into something else or just didn't happen - or is it just the rule for judging the validity of Derek's comments/opinions/assertions?

Someone makes a prediction of what's going to happen and then it doesn't happen, doubt their ability to predict.
Someone claims in-depth knowledge of a subject and can't get basic info right about it without checking, doubt their in-depth knowledge.
Apply it to whomever you like.

 

[ianw]

Someone makes a prediction of what's going to happen and then it doesn't happen, doubt their ability to predict.
Someone claims in-depth knowledge of a subject and can't get basic info right about it without checking, doubt their in-depth knowledge.
Apply it to whomever you like.

So how do you explain 3.0 for the end of this year - I know you'll say it wasn't a promise, it was target/slated/internal date/an estimate/a goal.

But seriously - knowing what we know now about the switch to Lumberyard and 2.6 release and all the other crap behind the scenes how could anyone even hint at that with a straight face?