The Star Citizen Thread

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I have to admit, I didn't know about the $27million FD had for development. Sounds even more to me like they will do great things as well. As many have said, having both SC and ED out there is a huge comeback for Space simulation as well as PC gaming. It would be great if game companies went back to developing games for PC, than developing for Consoles and then porting the dumbed down version to PC.

In truth i think that both companies at the moment have around the same funds to build the game, Frontier has a little less backing but already had a dev team and didn't have to build that from the ground.

The big difference is that Frontier has finacial backers that want return on their investment - a situation that CIG has succesfully avoided, time will tell how it pans out.
 
I completely agree. This video articulates why third-person is a problem (on foot, at least): http://youtu.be/v7zoVIsIT2A

Until I get some assurance that SC's fps gameplay won't have this built-in wallhack, I can't quite yet get excited about it.
There will be 3pv for on foot, but not for combat situations. (though i think there is a way for that not to be a problem. In regards to that video and its a fairly simple solution.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mhM9qiFZLM

http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/1399-pax-star-citizen-fps-gameplay-mechanics-chris-roberts
 
My two guesses would have been to either occlude all non-scenery objects not visible to the character's eyes, or to provide an automated but vulnerable camera drone. The former would be a bit too abstracted for SC, but the latter would fit in with the sci-fi setting. The idea with the drone being that the functionality would be exactly the same as simply having a third-person view option (so no ugly filtered view or manual control to get in the way), except the drone has to be activated and not destroyed for it to work.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

Anyone else seen the footage from PAX? What are peoples thoughts on the DFM Demo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TWQFSzQyeM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjp7Fuhloaw

Seems a fair amount going on thats for sure. Graphics detail is very high, perhaps too detailed? Not sure I like the blackout mechanics (personal choice).

I just found it all very busy and didn't really like the look of the flight mechanics - though will hold off final judgement until I get to try it myself.

Kro
 
Interesting Q & A about Star Citizen's plans for procedural generation in the latest episode of '10 for the chairman'.

Q : On the topic of procedural generation planetside, when and if this technology comes to fruition post release, what can we expect to see included besides exploration and atmospheric flight? Will we see some new procedurally generated planets in addition to the ones already in the verse that are just barren? Is it also possible that this procedural generation will extend into jump points as well and actually facilitate the creation of new planets and areas.

A : We're doing the R&D right now. Actually the first thing we're doing with the PG is researching asteroid generation, asteroid field generation, the ability to mine asteroids using voxel technology, so finding the seams of minerals inside the asteroids. Then the plan is to extend it to system generation so we can generate different star systems using the PG tech and then move on to celestial bodies like planets in terms of the generation of them from the exterior. The later stages will be procedural work for the environments you'll land in, we would have certain areas we would design and then flesh out the background city or landscape beyond the area you can explore. And then very very very long term if we can actually figure out a way to make the planet actually interesting, we would try to make a planet you can fly around in. THAT'S SORT OF LIKE A PIPE DREAM AT THE MOMENT. because even with PG you have to do a lot of other things like build cities, what happening on the planet and having all that simulated, and that's uh......we're already doing trying to do a whole universe and have an economy and all that work so.... *CR visibly grimaces*. I wouldn't promise anything on that yet. We certainly are going to research on could we extend the areas on the planet, could you fly down onto a planet. If we can do all that, that would be great. I know that there's a couple of demos and games out there that are showing/promising it, but it's one thing to show it as a general concept, it's sort of empty, and it's another to have it be interesting and feel like its properly living, breathing, realistic planet.

Transcript by Thirdstar, taken from here

Personally I'm not too bothered about this, as I'm really looking for different things from each game. It would have been nice to have atmospheric flight in Star Citizen though.
 
The way the ship can be flung about with seemingly no or very little inertia looks odd to me. I would be interested to know what type of controller was in use. I suspect a console pad of some kind.
 
Not sure I like the blackout mechanics (personal choice).
I think it's a good thing to include, as long as the flight assist (or whatever they call it in SC) can be configured to limit the rate of turn so as to avoid it in normal flight. I like the idea of being able to remove such safety overrides to give that extra edge.
 

Boomotang

Banned
I think it's a good thing to include, as long as the flight assist (or whatever they call it in SC) can be configured to limit the rate of turn so as to avoid it in normal flight. I like the idea of being able to remove such safety overrides to give that extra edge.

SC's fly-by-wire system is called the IFCS (Intelligent Flight Control System). It will be able to be set in a 'safe mode'. I don't think that functionality was in the build we saw. Chris Roberts talks about it in this video.

http://youtu.be/LHeLApZDQ3o?t=8m11s

Graphics detail is very high, perhaps too detailed?

How can the graphics be too detailed? :eek:
 
The way the ship can be flung about with seemingly no or very little inertia looks odd to me. I would be interested to know what type of controller was in use. I suspect a console pad of some kind.

I know its a different game but I use a control pad in ED and can pilot my ship as smoothly as those who use a HOTAS.
 
I just found it all very busy and didn't really like the look of the flight mechanics - though will hold off final judgement until I get to try it myself.

Kro

We have to remember that the Hornet is a fighter, and might actually be capable of those lunatic movements; I'm going to wait to see a few other ships before passing judgment on the flight model :). However, the cockpit UI is silly, with the spinny icons representing different weapons, and serveral redundancies of info. I'm not too keen on the missile lock animation either.
 

Boomotang

Banned
Here's an interesting poll on whether people want the blackouts or not.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/121147/black-outs-yes-or-no#latest

I was pleasantly surprised that 91% out of 700 votes at the moment want the blackouts.

I've also heard from people at PAX that CIG is planning on increasing the limits before G-LOC happens, making it a bit more forgiving. I'm sure they set it to exaggerate the effect for demoing purposes. Lots more tweaking on these things to go.
 
Last edited:

Jenner

I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Hilarious gif that I found on the RSI forum today. Made me chuckle so I figured I'd share it here. :D (I watched this interview - CR was talking about getting ed at a video game he was playing if I recall. :p I can imagine this being his reaction to the rocky DFM demo, though. lol)

m4Wme6t.gif
 
Here's an interesting poll on whether people want the blackouts or not.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/121147/black-outs-yes-or-no#latest

I was pleasantly surprised that 91% out of 700 votes at the moment want the blackouts.

I've also heard from people at PAX that CIG is planning on increasing the limits before G-LOC happens, making it a bit more forgiving. I'm sure they set it to exaggerate the effect for demoing purposes. Lots more tweaking on these things to go.

I laugh at the 9% that want the blackouts removed. Those are the people I don't want in SC at they are prone to complain about having to actually learn something new. Not sure if I'm going to care for them being lenient about the G-LOC though but will just have to wait and see I guess. Learning to fly the ship is more important than making things easy for those people.

We have to remember that the Hornet is a fighter, and might actually be capable of those lunatic movements; I'm going to wait to see a few other ships before passing judgment on the flight model :). However, the cockpit UI is silly, with the spinny icons representing different weapons, and serveral redundancies of info. I'm not too keen on the missile lock animation either.

Yes you are right, fighters will be able to make such maneuvers, and the racers, well they will be able to have serious acceleration and speed which will effect their maneuverability. If you're a larger cargo hauler well then you won't be able to move and shake with the smaller craft. Everything has its limits and feel in how they fly.

I haven't seen anything yet, but doesn't ED have a fighter type ship being put together in its program? That will more than likely move maneuver a lot better than the Sidewinder, no?

Hilarious gif that I found on the RSI forum today. Made me chuckle so I figured I'd share it here. :D (I watched this interview - CR was talking about getting ed at a video game he was playing if I recall. :p I can imagine this being his reaction to the rocky DFM demo, though. lol)

m4Wme6t.gif

It probably would of been, if he hadn't tossed back a couple before hand. Truth be told even if he was ticked about the release that Thursday, he was having the best two days ever after that weekend when they got the proper build in play. Players were just having and awesome time and some were reporting their experiences on the site, the lucky *******s. :)
 
Interesting Q & A about Star Citizen's plans for procedural generation in the latest episode of '10 for the chairman'.

Interesting indeed, but I don't really see the underlying goal. Star Citizen was always about detail rather than scale, so why not use PG to deepen the experience? I realise ED is spearheading the traditional "PG adds width" approach, but that's because scale is at the core of their vision. How about procedurally generating the histories of NPCs you meet, the scar tissue for commanders with different wound combinations, or the mannerisms of characters that grew up on different worlds? Those sorts of goals would speak to the SC aesthetic far better than a planet you could fly over but not interact with.
 
Interesting indeed, but I don't really see the underlying goal. Star Citizen was always about detail rather than scale, so why not use PG to deepen the experience? I realise ED is spearheading the traditional "PG adds width" approach, but that's because scale is at the core of their vision. How about procedurally generating the histories of NPCs you meet, the scar tissue for commanders with different wound combinations, or the mannerisms of characters that grew up on different worlds? Those sorts of goals would speak to the SC aesthetic far better than a planet you could fly over but not interact with.

I think it's down to the game engine. CryEngine3 & PG do not play well together - but they are doing the R & D to try to make it work.
 
Interesting Q & A about Star Citizen's plans for procedural generation in the latest episode of '10 for the chairman'.

Well, I also saw the same question answered and I got a whole different impression. The transcript you quoted is clearly written by someone hostile to CR and the subject of PG. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom