Aha, OK. Flight assist or so. Some Suchoi plane has this modeled in DCS I think. You can switch it off for greater control but it is a pain to fly stable. I only tried a couple of times - it's one of the "unfancy" modules where you cannot turn every and clicky thing.
The Star Citizen Thread v9
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
The last ATV was a combination of "we're going to talk about core improvements by talking specifically about more cosmetics within the engine" and "we can't show you too much because it might give away key story points" which is code for "we've done sod all and this is all we have to show you". What a bunch of codswollop.
Oh shush. If pyrotechnic charges are good enough to throw pilots free of a cockpit, they're good enough to keep a dune buggy off the ground. You obviously do no understand clearance development.
Basically, it's the central part of any modern fly-by-wire system (or drive-by-wire for that matter). The principle of the SC IFCS is very much a real thing: the computer knows what to adjust, how much, and how often, to get even the most unstable brick to coast along smoothly along a desired axis of travel.
The difference between real (and simulated) systems and what SC has is that the real ones adjust controls based on their physical limits and in response to physical events, whereas the SC one adjusts physics based on input limits and in response to player input.
Last edited:
They kept saying they didn't want to show stuff off because of spoilers. Then they did that hour long walkthrough at christmas because... erm.... oh well, back to not showing stuff because of spoilers.
But don't worry, release is just around the corner... again.
That whole excuse was mindbogglingly stupid and pathetic from the very first time they tried it, 4 or 5 years ago, and remains so today. If something cannot be shown off because it would reveal “key story points” then that must by necessity mean that this “something” is only used for that particular point, which by necessity means it is not a core improvement — it's just a one-off set piece.
A core improvement will be visible everywhere. If they can't show it off then it's because a) it's not core; 2) it's not an improvement; iv) it does not exist. It's that simple.
Also, there's nothing to spoil since the whole script has been leaked already, and it's so trite, derivative, and unimaginative that you would immediately suspect it was written by Chris Roberts or something, so leaks aside, you'd still be able to fully predict every last beat of the “story”.
Last edited:
Obviously not. I was just not aware that explosive surprise ejection of wheels was a feature.
In the case of a simulated environment and not an actual real air/spacecraft would the pilot/player really notice a difference?
I mean, while it can be seen as cheating and crude it does the job, no?
They'll feel different, that's for sure. For one, you'll be able to push up against the limits and either notice that they're there, or be able to overwhelm the FBW and have a really bad day when the raw and physics take over and you're no longer shielded from them.
You'll also notice the imperfection of a real (and properly simulated) system — again, the physics of the situation will toss you around, and the control system will try to compensate. It will do a good, or maybe even very good job, but it will not be on rails the way it happens if you just go in and alter the underlying physics. A proper system will be entirely capable of sorting itself out over time (as long) as it operates within those limits; it will not always and instantly counteract the forces applied to it.
Cheating and crude would be to not just have either simulated, or to vastly simplify both simulations. What CIG is doing is a yet another case of their classic self-defeating contradictory over-engineering solution strategy, all to achieve a much worse result than even a very simply and crude system would offer. Granted, in most other cases, they've made one system and then another that cancels the first one out (rather than just remove both and get the same result); in this case, they've made on system and then another that overwrites the first one.
The end result is a pointlessly redundant system that does not do the job of conveying any kind of sense that this is some kind of physical object that you're controlling in a simulated environment. It's just no-clip with collisions turned back on.
Last edited:
Hmm, true, I'll have to test the IFCS "off" mode to see the difference.
If anything they have made the IFCS to simple since it's too perfect. Now, that said, there are less outside factors in space as compared to a planet so it will be interesting in how the IFCS would cheat on-planet.
I reckon only 2000 posts would ve been required but there are always the same jokers not reading anything which trigger the same arguments over and over. Not reading, not listening to logic and making up fantasies are prime qualities of these folks, no wonder they are so enrooted in the dream. Of course CiGs inability to admit failure and blatant obvious attempts at ripping off its fanbase also prolong the existence of this thread. While discussions can (and have been) turn serious CiG and SC simply are the best source for jokes and sarcasm all around, there is no denying it. Whenever the fanatics calm down and things get low CiG comes up with yet another spectacular mess-up invigorating the whole thing.
Why display something obvious like that? If people point it out you can laugh and ridicule and call them names for it because only an idiot would think that video represents Star Citizen in any form right?........right?
I was waiting for an opportunity when one of you guys slipped enabling me to call you folks out on it but damn, you folks are on the level /salute ^^
Judging its overall reliability and performance under standard conditions (PTU) I d say thats spot-on. About your previous comment, do you mean you guys are holding back information?
The military always makes the best toys
Jokes aside the "morphing" wheels are simply awesome
I had Audi's version of this one my previous S3 (called Magnetic Ride) and while it was indeed capable of handling bumps and potholes very well, there were still situations where my car would exhibit extreme bounce behavior. There was a speed hump in one of the parking garages at work, that at low speeds could really make my front end bounce up quite significantly. I quickly learned not to use that parking garage (or to illegally use the exit lane to enter it as there was no hump there).
So it wasn't magically able to handle all situations. Do I do miss it from time to time on my new S3 (note to self: next time check the options list better when buying a second hand car).
The detached wheel is a different object in a different state. I don't know what handles that, probably the Cry physics layer.
Vehicles and ships and torpedoes re all IFCS.
Maybe if you ask on Spectrum they might get John Pritchett to do a video on all of this stuff. From his bedroom
There was a video proving that the wheels are just tacked on. I think it was a player YouTube/Twitch video. I'm sure it was posted on SA as proof that what CIG was saying was all garbage, as usual. I'll try to find it. I may be some time.
Goose4291
Banned
With lethal ramps and floors that vanish from existence in an eyeblink, Commando's have evolved to fully use the available terrain to help maximise their chances of survival.
Keeping above the ground may be the key to the future of mankind. Maybe Genuine Roberts watched Tremors recently
Pft.... you don't know the true meaning of terror till you've tried to scale a ladder/open an door in any ArmA game
When can we expect 3.2 patch to go LIVE?
STOP CLOGGING UP THE INTERNET!
Why can't we all just sit and wait patiently
Why can't we all just sit and wait patiently
Last edited:
Pretty sure 3.1 went out on a weekend. I'd say probably tomorrow, but maybe today.
Pft.... you don't know the true meaning of terror till you've tried to scale a ladder/open an door in any ArmA game
Didn't play much Arma, but remember entire DayZ patches when going up stairs was a really bad idea.
Not only did he write a doc on it, he has been giving in depth answers to questions on the design and function of it:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/ifcs-q-a
Ok,THX for the info....any significant changes beside mining introduction in YOUR opinion?
Too bad that so much of it is wholly removed from any kind of physics or physics-based reality.
Also, too bad that he doesn't have enough programming chops to even describe what he's doing correctly…
Last edited:
About your previous comment, do you mean you guys are holding back information?
Nobody would believe it, a documentary on this project with first hand accounts from devs would be the greatest gift you could possibly imagine.