Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
The Star Citizen Thread v5
- Thread starter Brett C
- Start date
- Status
Well, Adr1ft, Detached or experiences like Mission: ISS, among others, disagree
Those do not have fast FPS combat action and motion sickens are big issue with this...
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Detached does have combat action, it is just not the "TF2 shoot bazooka to floor to leap over a building" kind of FPS combat you probably mean
I do not think FPS combat is an issue per se for VR, it is the FPS motion. You can still shoot laser ray guns and what not as long as the motion is reasonably deliberate/tactical and therefore relatively slow paced, i.e. "VR rated".
Last edited:
I have played Quake2 in VR without any problem.
I bet you played it at a good framerate. From what I have seen of SC, that is going to be a big problem.
2 minutes of Star Citizen in VR;
[video=youtube;qxRmzq3Azs4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxRmzq3Azs4[/video]
Did you buy a Big Benny's machine instead?
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/136633322?t=19m37s
Well worth investing their time in. [haha]
Last edited:
no doubt on this.
I like how SC is not considered a cockpit game, as if flying the spaceship is just a mini-game you can do when you get bored of loading cargo and mixing cocktails.
ArmA do have VR however it's not native supported, BI has been very silent about it so there probably are some obstacles that need to be removed before they claim or promise anything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnWECt-VTJ0
I haven't seen any existing games that have managed to re-purpose existing games for VR in a sophisticated way, even the likes of Valve who I would say are MUCH deeper into VR than CIG. There are currently no native VR implementations of Half Life or Portal for consumer kit. Really they ought to be thinking about that before they, say tie in the avatar to a bunch of animations, but as you say it'll all be implemented beautifully in a far off future in Linux with mod support right?
If VR isn't important to them due to low numbers of users they should say so and not advertise it as a stretch goal. They shouldn't court the VR press. I believe that, while many PC gamers don't have the kit yet, they certainly see it as being an important part of PC gaming's future. Kit is getting cheaper.
Though you are correct in that they really need to work VR into the base of the game in order for it to be a solid quality experience, I do have to disagree about no one using VR in an already existing game in a good way.
Croteam probably disagree as well, since they are killing it with all the Serious Sam VR stuff.
Aside from that wasn't Project Cars around far longer than VR? Yeah, VR was added into that game later as well.
Though janky, Dolphin VR was able to make certain games (Metroid Prime in particular) feel very awesome despite the GC graphics and the fact that the game is absolutely not designed for VR.
Lastly there's the big example already mentioned to death of that flight sim.
It can be done, but it is far from easy and since CIG seem incapable of getting a ring to spin around a station without causing catastrophic problems I don't think they are up to the task.
Last edited:
Derek, let them keep changing the date. It makes it even more ridiculous that CIG went with Cryengine.
That's patently FALSE. Unless and until they release a 3.0x build with that stuff already implemented, it's just the same check boxes of DREAMS.
- - - Updated - - -
I agree with you on a basic level as it doesnt make sense. That is not the point tho. The point is that VR was promised along many other things and is now cut for seemingly massive technical problems or probably massive technical incompetence. If THIS happens there is no garantuee ANY OF THE OTHER promises will come through as well. Reasons will be found and explanations given but that doesnt help the people who give money to CiG for very specific reasons only to see these reasons fall away as times goes by. I dont know the first thing about VR other then how to consume it but I rely on explanations given from others who in the past showed their expertise with these things. If they would be made-up arguments then I m pretty sure they would be challenged and disabled quickly yet most of what these folks say does make sense and is even confirmed by other sources. So it appears that pushing VR implementation back in the development cycle doesnt really work out in reality. Or do you see this different? If yes, what are your pro arguments for doing this?
Haha you got me there I checked out the link because you sounded so sincere. That dude is the EMBODIMENT of "fun" and looks the part as well
And he used to be one of their top streamers. Then ride ran out of gas.
- - - Updated - - -
He used to be one of the top Star Citizen streamers. Wait till u hear what he has to say now nobody is playing it
https://clips.twitch.tv/BigDoubtfulChimpanzeeHassaanChop
yeah-- I was a little surprised (though not much) to see a 2.6.*3* update waiting from me when I got back. Though the planetary landings (one moon apparently has an atmosphere), trading, land bases-- all look good to me, assuming they stick with the schedule. June isn't too far off, and hopefully it's worth the wait!
Last edited:
Well in the announcement they put 2-3 paragraphs about why you shouldn't hold them to that date, so I wouldn't get attached to the idea of a June release. I don't think they'll let it slip toooooooo far though, and I want to try it out and see what cargo shipping feels like in SC. It's a big test, but as I said a few times this is a welcome sign of life for the project.
agreed-- almost like they've been holding back significant updates so they can actually pull this off. I do think June is ambitious.. maybe they let it slip to 3q, but I doubt much further.. much longer and they'll impact their anniversary sale
they know there's a lot riding on this... if they screw it up, I predict E
will see a population spike (I for one will dust off my 'old anaconda and re-learn this new fangled engineering thing )- Status