Smart Community

Games => Star Citizen => Topic started by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 08:51:19 AM

Title: Star Citizen General BS
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 08:51:19 AM

The furor over the "golf radar" - post 4550 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4550)

Their procedural generation of planetary terrain tech demos - post 4725 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4725)

The scene sizes & that 64-Bit nonsense - post 1812 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-year-four/#post-1812)

The "persistent" universe that's still not persistent - post 1849 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-year-four/#post-1849)

How they used Nyx in another procedural planet tech demo - post #2005 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/general-discussions/#post-2005)

The revelation by Brian Chambers who claimed they'd revised CE3 by up to 50% - post 4483 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4483)

There was that time when Sean Tracy decided to clarify the 64-Bit confusion (http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2622-star-citizen-sean-tracy-64bit-engine-tech-edge-blending) which backers seemed to be confusing. This is the subject of a recent discussion (see below) between Ben Parry and I.

Status of the 2.6 and 3.0 patches which were due end of this year, and bringing Star Marine as well as "emergent" gameplay - post 4757 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4757)

The tech demo at GamesCom 2016 - post 4589 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4589)

The tech demo at CitizenCon 2016 - Shattered Dreams blog (http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/10/star-citizen-shattered-dreams/)

The Star Marine fiasco at 2016 anniversary stream - post 4879 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4879)

And of course what the end of year fiasco means for the on-going E.L.E. - post 4854 (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4854)

UPDATE: My discussions (1 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4821808&viewfull=1#post4821808),2 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4821808&viewfull=1#post4821808),3 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4825297&viewfull=1#post4825297),4 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4825525&viewfull=1#post4825525),5 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4835991&viewfull=1#post4835991),6 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4838364&viewfull=1#post4838364),7 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4843554&viewfull=1#post4843554),8 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4845610&viewfull=1#post4845610)) with Ben Parry one of the rendering programmers on the project. This was sparked by this discussion (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg289#msg289) about the SC world size.



As of Dec 9th, with 2.6 still MIA and 3.0 still a pipe dream, these are the major releases this year since 2.0

v2.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15106-Star-Citizen-Alpha-20-Available) (patch notes (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15109-Star-Citizen-Alpha-200)), Dec 12, 2015
v2.1.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15137-Star-Citizen-Alpha-210), Jan 15, 2016
v2.2.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15211-Star-Citizen-Alpha-220), March 4, 2016
v2.3.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15268-Star-Citizen-Alpha-230), March 26, 2016
v2.4.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15377-Star-Citizen-Alpha-240), June 9, 2016
v2.5.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/15490-Star-Citizen-Alpha-250), Aug 25, 2016
v2.6 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15646-Star-Citizen-Alpha-26-With-Star-Marine-Available), Dec 23, 2016

And during this period, these are ALL the Star Marine updates. Yet, here we are, over a year later, and they still can't get it working.

AUGUST 22ND 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14911-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
AUGUST 29TH 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14925-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
SEPTEMBER 19TH 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14961-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
OCTOBER 23RD 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15024-Development-Update)



Don't forget all what they promised in the 2.6 patch (https://starcitizen.tools/Star_Citizen_Alpha_2.6.0#/media/File:Star-Citizen-Alpha-2.6-Nov-18-2016-Schedule.png), as per the recently unveiled "schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report)" UPDATE: They changed that almost a week later. Like it never happened (https://www.diffchecker.com/ucNCNlQy).

Company sizes as of CitizenCon 2016 (Oct)

(http://www.dereksmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cig-studio-size-1.jpg)

Number of known corporate entities associated with the project. Not including all the third-party contractors and companies.




When it's all said and done, amid all the broken feature promises (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/593nng/star_citizen_missing_features_and_broken_promises/) and missed dates, this is what Star Citizen boils down to after 4 years (5 if you count 2011 as per Chris's statements) and $134 million (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals) as per the "Star Citizen Alpha 2.5 Features - See what's playable now (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/feature-list)" page.

I need someone to please explain to me, in simple terms, how ANY of this is ground-breaking, let alone have the ability to "change PC gaming".

What I see is a standard fare game with zero innovation or unique features. Waking up in a wank pod and being in fps mod inside a game is neither new, nor ground-breaking. Aside from my game, right now you can go on Steam and find a number of games such as Angels Fall First that do it. Not to mention COD:IW, the upcoming Mass Effect Andromeda.

Who sees a $134 million "game" here? And if they do, what exactly is the "draw" and USP (Unique Selling Point)?

(http://imgur.com/gYKGz3S.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/qrXPvwS.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/fH9SvaO.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/dHfku78.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/rDkwJbB.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/RpS2s9a.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/ax3OSOv.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/pKSFfzw.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/tOEV8Kv.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/kooWPns.jpg)

(http://imgur.com/4WDCErL.jpg)[/list]
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 23, 2016, 03:14:06 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Newbest on November 23, 2016, 03:29:52 PM
The draw of Star Citizen is the freedom from time constraints CIG has and the unique selling point is the fidelity at which the final game will execute its features. While games in the past have created similar products CIG has embarked upon the creation of this type of game at an elevated level. Kick starting this project was the best way to create the game CIG envisioned and with all development that vision changes when you are getting it done. Looking at perhaps one of the best open world games made, Rockstar defined what happens when the developer is not tied to a rigid production schedule and what can happen if you wait until you get right before you release. CIG is executing their production in the same way with the added bonus of communicating while they do this. The fact that they are not settling for just good enough is another draw for this game. Rather that pushing out a rushed product they are truly attempting to release the best of what can be. Regarding their current development time CIG is only in year 4 of what is normally a 5 year cycle on average to produce a new IP. A six year cycle for the development of this game should be expected because of what they are attempting. As well the successive years will bring accelerated production as key feature are created and the heavy lifting is winding down. Now it is completely understandable that this game might not be for everyone but to suggest that CIG is somehow complicit in some scam is about as believable as Elvis still being alive.

So to tl:dr
Draw, unencumbered schedule. USP, fidelity of scope.

Edit. Phone grammars.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on November 23, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

Fine and dandy.

Great.

Good.

Fast forward to 2019 when SC is released and Elite also has FPS and boarding actions and the ability to walk around ships and stations.

Where is the innovation?

Elite has flaws but Frontier took the pathway of releasing a MVP and are building upon it. They have ambitious plans and so far they have delivered. And even when I think their releases don't add much to the game...as with multi crew...I still see the advantages of following through simply because of what such features mean for future development.

SC IMO will also have a MVP release. CIG will build upon it and add new features.

But I look at what Frontier have given us with a few million dollars and I see what CIG have produced with a few tens of millions.

And i have to ask....what is CIG spending their money on?

I don't believe there is a scam as some would say.
I think CIG are earnestly developing the game.
I think ship sales are a nice way to reward investors...without actually making them investors. A neat way to get people to part with their money for an instant reward as opposed to a need to actually deliver a profit.

But looking at what has been delivered so far?

What is SC doing that is so much better than anything else in a similar vein?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 04:12:45 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

Well none of those things are actually working atm. And thus far, there is no indication that they will be. That's the point.

Also, have you played Angels Fall First? No? It's on Steam Early Access. Try it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 04:13:47 PM
The draw of Star Citizen is the freedom from time constraints CIG has and the unique selling point is the fidelity at which the final game will execute its features. While games in the past have created similar products CIG has embarked upon the creation of this type of game at an elevated level. Kick starting this project was the best way to create the game CIG envisioned and with all development that vision changes when you are getting it done. Looking at perhaps one of the best open world games made, Rockstar defined what happens when the developer is not tied to a rigid production schedule and what can happen if you wait until you get right before you release. CIG is executing their production in the same way with the added bonus of communicating while they do this. The fact that they are not settling for just good enough is another draw for this game. Rather that pushing out a rushed product they are truly attempting to release the best of what can be. Regarding their current development time CIG is only in year 4 of what is normally a 5 year cycle on average to produce a new IP. A six year cycle for the development of this game should be expected because of what they are attempting. As well the successive years will bring accelerated production as key feature are created and the heavy lifting is winding down. Now it is completely understandable that this game might not be for everyone but to suggest that CIG is somehow complicit in some scam is about as believable as Elvis still being alive.

So to tl:dr
Draw, unencumbered schedule. USP, fidelity of scope.

Edit. Phone grammars.

uhm, how does any of the above relate to a "game" and the subject of my missive?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 04:14:58 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

But looking at what has been delivered so far?

What is SC doing that is so much better than anything else in a similar vein?

Precisely. And this is the question that most of these guys can't seem to be able to answer.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on November 23, 2016, 04:41:39 PM
I think some of the disconnect is with people who are either a) new to the project, or b) casual observers.  They look at the site, they look up Chris's history (but only scratching the surface, oh look, he made Wing Commander, I heard of that), they read some gamer articles, and the natural conclusion, even a logical one, is "OK this game looks good, and it is in development.  4 years is fine, it will probably take longer.)

Can we really expect the casual observer to understand what's really happening at CIG?  What Chris's actual game development history and credentials reveal?  Can we expect the average person to know, just by looking, how badly this studio has been approaching the project?  How much money has been blown by filming millions of dollars of motion capture before the game engine is working?  Failing to even know what anyone will DO in this game before making tons of ships to sell?  The fact that there's no flight model or working anything?  And over 100 other little factoids that reveal that this isn't actually a development studio - it's a cargo cult.

The average person reads articles, sees screenshots, and assumes what 99% of the planet assumes - a developer is working on a game.  They simply look at what actual game developers and publishers are doing, and use that template to extrapolate what they think will happen with CIG.

CIG's business model relies on this mistake occurring indefinitely.  Once they release anything concrete, people will see this project for what it really is.  Then the real fun begins.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 23, 2016, 05:06:17 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

Well none of those things are actually working atm. And thus far, there is no indication that they will be. That's the point.

Also, have you played Angels Fall First? No? It's on Steam Early Access. Try it.

You asked what people see in it. I answered you that: A game in on going development. You can agree to this fact or not. And so far they managed to get *something* done. Some people are okay with that progress, some are not.

Regarding AFF: Yes. It looks like a great game. But it's not an MMO. It's a mixup between Battlefield and Planetside 2. And not what Star Citizen promises as a whole. Like the others said there have been games that did what SC promises. Just not cramped into a single seamless expierence.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Dementropy on November 23, 2016, 06:21:44 PM
Star Citizen cannot be released. Not anytime soon. That would be the worst thing that could happen to the project and to backers. In it's current state, there are promises and "ongoing development." There's nothing groundbreaking other than timelines and how many times they've had to go back to the drawing board. Oh, and funding - but that's unnecessary, as they've stated they have enough to finish the game as promised (though I forget which "as promised" scope that included).

If SC gets released, then it will be measured against other games, and will have the uphill battle of selling to an as-yet untapped audience to make up for the cost of production.

Star Citizen's current and ongoing success is fueling theorycrafting through future promises without delivering on the credit generated for past ones.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 23, 2016, 06:31:31 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

Well none of those things are actually working atm. And thus far, there is no indication that they will be. That's the point.

Also, have you played Angels Fall First? No? It's on Steam Early Access. Try it.

You asked what people see in it. I answered you that: A game in on going development. You can agree to this fact or not. And so far they managed to get *something* done. Some people are okay with that progress, some are not.

Regarding AFF: Yes. It looks like a great game. But it's not an MMO. It's a mixup between Battlefield and Planetside 2. And not what Star Citizen promises as a whole. Like the others said there have been games that did what SC promises. Just not cramped into a single seamless expierence.

Star Citizen isn't an MMO either, is it?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Newbest on November 23, 2016, 06:36:12 PM
uhm, how does any of the above relate to a "game" and the subject of my missive?

The end of your missive stated:

Who sees a $134 million "game" here? And if they do, what exactly is the "draw" and USP (Unique Selling Point)?

I answered what was asked.

Would you not like to be in the position to have a large sum of capital and the ability to build a team to see your vision realized?

And again I will state somewhat differently what the Unique Selling Point is, a game people want to play that contains systems crafted to create a fun game.

Do you truly believe that the entirety of CIG is a fabricated company that is in no way building a game? That the money they have acquired is not going towards the creation of said game?

Derek you of all people have been on the end of having to answer to publishers. You have seen the effects of a company hell bent on releasing a game no matter what the current state it is in. SC is a game that has managed to avoid the unenviable position of having to answer to publisher. You have to admit that is the best place to be when making a game. No one wants Johnny Corporate telling you to put a turtle in the game because his son loves turtles.

I do think they are making a game and its selling point is the scale at which it is being developed. Yes there are many systems, yes they are incomplete but the game as a whole is incomplete.

And you know that it is possible to knit game components together when developing. They do not all have to take part in the same branch, it has been done in the industry forever.

This game will take time but it will be good because the people making the game are as passionate as you about making games and they truly want to build a glorious game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on November 23, 2016, 07:14:50 PM
I'd like to welcome Newbest - and differentiate this forum from an echo chamber like Reddit in doing so.  Respectful discourse is best.

Newbest - nobody thinks the production companies are fake.  Obviously they're staffed with passionate people who want to make this game reality.  The disconnect is only in one place - Chris.  Aside from Wing Commander (a game made so long ago it shipped on 5.25" floppy disks) his history is mixed at best.  Once he milked the good will out of his original franchise, he ran everything else into the ground.  Even Freelancer, his last reasonable foray into gaming, had to be taken from him and released by a real production company.  That was in 2000 - 16 years ago.

Since that time Chris has not been in the gaming industry, and has not learned anything during his absence.  Now that he's back, he's literally reinventing and rediscovering almost two decades of gaming lessons first hand, not because gaming best practices have failed to evolve, but because he doesn't think any game developers over a near 20 year period have anything to teach him.

That arrogance led him to commit an extraordinary amount of his backer money into lavish offices in 4 countries across the world, filling them with the accumulated bric-a-brac that actual development companies, such as Blizzard, had to earn over decades of hard work and actual produced, shipped, and commercially successful products and IPs.  He skipped all that and went straight for the appearance of success.  CIG, as an entity, has no games to its name, shipped or otherwise.

There is no documentation or plan for what the actual game systems are, but instead, what we have are nothing more than potential game assets, that Chris, being out of the industry for too long and refusing to listen to people who know more than him, thinks will plug together like Lego bricks and a game will pop out.  The engine is a Frankenstein's monster of garbled code that's barely holding at the seams.  Rather than being the typical state of a pre-alpha, CIG's engine, in contrast, gets weaker and more prone to catastrophic failure with every patch.

Chris, in short, has no idea how to turn the ideas in his head into the game he's promised.  He knows where he wants to be, but has no idea how to get there.  That makes him an inappropriate steward of backer cash.  Regardless of whether or not he came up with the idea, whether or not he's the visionary, all that is secondary - if he can't turn that vision into reality, and hand the reins of development and leadership to a competent individual and retain a position as lead designer, rather than CIG godhead, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Star Citizen can fulfill its potential.

Consider other large companies and how close they can come to the edge of oblivion based on leadership decisions.  Netflix was doing great, and with one bad decision, nearly ceased to exist overnight.  Fortunately in their case they course-corrected in time.  And Netflix had a product.  How many bad decisions can CIG make, back to back, and stay in business, when they have yet to design a business model built on residual income?

So you see it's not really a question of "is it real, is it a great idea, is it visionary" etc. - sure, it's all of those things.  Nearly everyone here is and/or was a backer of this project for the same reasons the most diehard fan bought in.  But there comes a time when you have to think - is Chris actually qualified to be calling all the shots, and micromanaging this down to the shoelaces on the spaceman models, with his track record?  Is it that important, even if it's "his idea", to let him crash and burn if that's his tendency?

Remember, it's not his money.  We might know that, but I don't think Chris Roberts knows that.  Or cares.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: concern on November 23, 2016, 07:18:26 PM
No one wants Johnny Corporate telling you to put a turtle in the game because his son loves turtles.

Instead we have Chris Roberts putting his son's turtles into the game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Bio-Mujahid on November 23, 2016, 08:25:27 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

I fail to see the MMO side in star citizen. Crashes when 5 people connect.... how is this an MMO!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Newbest on November 23, 2016, 09:01:36 PM
I'd like to welcome Newbest - and differentiate this forum from an echo chamber like Reddit in doing so.  Respectful discourse is best.

Thanks for the welcome. I have been watching from the outside looking for quite some time now and thought to add some perspective as someone who is in neither camp but a student of game design.

Newbest - nobody thinks the production companies are fake.

There is an active narrative that would disagree with this statement. Or if that isn't the case it makes no sense that comments were made to "hint" that the company was somehow not really a games studio.

The disconnect is only in one place - Chris.  Aside from Wing Commander (a game made so long ago it shipped on 5.25" floppy disks) his history is mixed at best.  Once he milked the good will out of his original franchise, he ran everything else into the ground.  Even Freelancer, his last reasonable foray into gaming, had to be taken from him and released by a real production company.  That was in 2000 - 16 years ago.

This is an understandable stance to take if you have never developed video games before. While agreed he produced games 16 years ago those games were very successful when released and seem to be still enjoyed to this day. The Wing Commander Series was an excellent set of games when released. Having been around for when they were released they were some of the best games available to play on the systems at the time. Origin as a whole was producing fantastic games in that era. Game design is like riding a bike, you do not forget how to do it. What Chris may lack in technical understanding he makes up for by hiring people that can fill those voids and get the job done.

Since that time Chris has not been in the gaming industry, and has not learned anything during his absence.  Now that he's back, he's literally reinventing and rediscovering almost two decades of gaming lessons first hand, not because gaming best practices have failed to evolve, but because he doesn't think any game developers over a near 20 year period have anything to teach him.
That arrogance led him to commit an extraordinary amount of his backer money into lavish offices in 4 countries across the world, filling them with the accumulated bric-a-brac that actual development companies, such as Blizzard, had to earn over decades of hard work and actual produced, shipped, and commercially successful products and IPs.  He skipped all that and went straight for the appearance of success.  CIG, as an entity, has no games to its name, shipped or otherwise.

CIG needs offices to work, having non-dumpy offices help get work done as employees enjoy working in a nice space. As well, when moving forward and looking to the future all capital expenses around offices only help with optics when it comes to attracting other investors. Would you want to work in a dump? Bric-a-brac will come in from everyone that works there. Game developers are notorious for bringing in man dolls and the like.

There is no documentation or plan for what the actual game systems are, but instead, what we have are nothing more than potential game assets, that Chris, being out of the industry for too long and refusing to listen to people who know more than him, thinks will plug together like Lego bricks and a game will pop out.  The engine is a Frankenstein's monster of garbled code that's barely holding at the seams.  Rather than being the typical state of a pre-alpha, CIG's engine, in contrast, gets weaker and more prone to catastrophic failure with every patch.

Never, ever, ever, ;) has a game developer ever released design docs while working on a project. Those are 100% internal documents ment for employees eyes only. Seeing as none of us work at CIG we are unfit to comment on the state of the current game design. Chris has also employed people from the current industry who know how to make games. And yes he is listening to them. Work is getting done. The fact that they have taken Cryengine and refactored the bejezus out of it shows you they have talent on their team. They are using an engine that has a great foundation. This is to be applauded because they have chosen not to re-invent the wheel but have instead adopted and re-engineered a wicked engine. As well the have engineers from Crytek itself who know this tech inside and out, which explains the things they have been able to do in the game.

Chris, in short, has no idea how to turn the ideas in his head into the game he's promised.  He knows where he wants to be, but has no idea how to get there.  That makes him an inappropriate steward of backer cash.  Regardless of whether or not he came up with the idea, whether or not he's the visionary, all that is secondary - if he can't turn that vision into reality, and hand the reins of development and leadership to a competent individual and retain a position as lead designer, rather than CIG godhead, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Star Citizen can fulfill its potential.

I would disagree. They are making progress and building a foundation. As I stated before, in game development you find as you go along goals move. What you once thought was awesome and sweet can now become even awesomer and sweeter. They have a plan, they are executing it, it just isnt happening as publicly or as transparently as you would like. Got it. Well unfortunately that is how game development goes. They are not required to disclose everything to you. And yes I understand that people may be backers, but you backed the game to be released and not how it gets developed. And fortunately if this is something someone does not like, they can back out and get a refund. What is strange is the level of hate being generated by those who no longer agree with the game. You are 100% allowed to not want the game or even like how it is unfolding, but ad hominem attacks on Chris's character or his ability is strange. Have you ever even spoken to him, have you developed games at his level before? I believe not judging someone before walking a mile in their shoes might be a better way to approach this.

Consider other large companies and how close they can come to the edge of oblivion based on leadership decisions.  Netflix was doing great, and with one bad decision, nearly ceased to exist overnight.  Fortunately in their case they course-corrected in time.  And Netflix had a product.  How many bad decisions can CIG make, back to back, and stay in business, when they have yet to design a business model built on residual income?

The company is not on the edge of collapse. CIG understands how to run a business. They are not seat of the pantsing this ride. They do actually have a business model already in the works through the selling of ships and or credits. Much like almost every other game now being created micro transactions are going to be supported. CIG does not want to collapse and Chris is not leading them to this.

Remember, it's not his money.  We might know that, but I don't think Chris Roberts knows that.  Or cares.

Lets bring this all back around to, you disagree with Chris's abilities so you have dropped your supported and pulled out. Excellent. But to suggest Chris doesnt see the fortunate position he is in is misguided.

Chris is as passionate about games as Derek is and you can be sure Derek leads in the same way as Chris. His vision is the vision. Perhaps this is why there is so much discord, because Chris has managed to harness the ability to create the game he loves and knows that others love as well. Derek unfortunately has not had this opportunity.

This game is taking some time to build. Other games have taken some time to build. This game has the luxury of not being beholden to a publisher which in turns lets schedules become more fluid, which in turns means things take longer, which in turn means thing can get polished, which in turn means the game will be better still. Can we please drop the narrative that Chris somehow has no idea what he is doing and somehow hasnt managed to hire people who know how to make game? Because truly that seems to be what this comes back to every time.

Some people dont like how long it take to get games made, got it. But everyone one else is okay with it and is willing to see this through. Super. Now lets get back to playing other games and ignore this one if its not you cup of tea, or dont ignore it if it is. But this game aint coming out soon and thats okay and not some nefarious plot.

Word to all your moms.
Peace.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on November 23, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Lots of stuff.

Thanks for the thought-out replies.  We're obviously entrenched in our positions so I'll just make 2 clarifications:

1)  I haven't pulled out or received a refund.  I'm sticking with it to see what happens.
2)  Chris has shown repeatedly that he does not listen to or trust his crew.  I'm afraid I don't have specific examples but I suspect many here have several.  Has that changed recently?  I don't know.

Just don't be one of those guys who loses his shit if this goes tits up - it's not worth it over a video game.  I don't get that vibe from your writing, so it's probably not necessary for me to say it, but it doesn't hurt to do so anyway.  I don't think some of the current backers are seeing this as optimistically yet still balanced as you - some of these people are going to go mental.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Newbest on November 23, 2016, 09:18:13 PM
2)  Chris has shown repeatedly that he does not listen to or trust his crew.  I'm afraid I don't have specific examples but I suspect many here have several.  Has that changed recently?  I don't know.

We may all know somewhat else who may be like that if its true. ;)

Just don't be one of those guys who loses his shit if this goes tits up - it's not worth it over a video game.  I don't get that vibe from your writing, so it's probably not necessary for me to say it, but it doesn't hurt to do so anyway.  I don't think some of the current backers are seeing this as optimistically yet still balanced as you - some of these people are going to go mental.

I promise if this were to implode it will not affect my day to day at all.

I would be sad if anything because they have the world at their feet with this momentum. We are witnessing something that has never occurred in the history of game development. To have a studio able to fund their game out of the gate and be able to do it on their terms should be nothing but exciting.

Game development sucks because it can take a long time to actualize what you want but the end result is almost always fantastic.

The level of mental needs to be scaled back on all sides. =)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Mehlan on November 23, 2016, 09:55:25 PM
"Never, ever, ever, ;) has a game developer ever released design docs while working on a project. Those are 100% internal documents ment for employees eyes only. Seeing as none of us work at CIG we are unfit to comment on the state of the current game design. Chris has also employed people from the current industry who know how to make games. And yes he is listening to them. Work is getting done. The fact that they have taken Cryengine and refactored the bejezus out of it shows you they have talent on their team. They are using an engine that has a great foundation. This is to be applauded because they have chosen not to re-invent the wheel but have instead adopted and re-engineered a wicked engine. As well the have engineers from Crytek itself who know this tech inside and out, which explains the things they have been able to do in the game."

  Work is getting done and they were only able to 'refactor the bejezus' out of it because they got some of the engineers from Crytek.


  Chris is an Idea guy living on the border of lala land..  take a serious look at what the man has said about where the game stands in each of his 'letters' and then the reality of where things stand.


Dec 17, 2013
 ". We’re further along than originally planned in building the tech for the persistent and instancing server backend which will ultimately drive Star Citizen. Both Squadron 42 and First Person Personal combat / boarding have full teams working in parallel, in addition to the teams in Los Angeles, Austin and Montreal working on the Dogfighting and Planetside components. We have smaller groups of people supporting these efforts from CGBot in Austin & Monterrey, Mexico and Void Alpha in San Francisco."

 Yep, back in good old 2013 They were 'further along than originally planned'....and here we are almost 3 years later, SQ42 now has a supposed 2017 release date, FPS is a joke and star marine is still vaporware.


 The Hype and all the BS are repeated attempts to buy time.  The 'internal schedule', live streams etc are nothing but elaborate Smoke & mirrors, carrots & sticks while they struggle to actually 'produce' something functional out of the behemoth of bs.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Newbest on November 23, 2016, 10:24:42 PM
The Hype and all the BS are repeated attempts to buy time.  The 'internal schedule', live streams etc are nothing but elaborate Smoke & mirrors, carrots & sticks while they struggle to actually 'produce' something functional out of the behemoth of bs.

They dont need to buy time, they can take all the time they like. And lets remember they dont want to take up all the time. They want to release the game, they really do.

The smoke and mirror narrative is itself smoke and mirrors. The game is being made, the progress is happening, yes it is taking a long time and making games is hard. Welcome to game dev 101.

Those live streams are not fake, there is a game under there, yes it is bug ridden but that is because it is in development. Everyone can agree this one is taking a long time to make. Excellent.

I am positive those that can wait will be happy they did. Those that dont want to wait will be happy they didnt. Everybody wins!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Mehlan on November 23, 2016, 10:50:29 PM
" They dont need to buy time, they can take all the time they like. "

 No they can't, time & funding is not infinite.  Take sufficient 'time', they will run out of $ and thus out of time.

 Yes we know they are trying to make the 'game', reality is, it is taking them a longer than CR himself had 'hoped'.
  IF CR & CIG were so sure, they wouldn't keep changing the ToS to cover their arse.

"Those live streams are not fake"
   
   Go back and review some of those 2015 'livestreams' of Star Marine... 

   Which brings us back to the smoke & mirrors....
    Note the now '2017' date on the SQ42 Trailer.
    Go back and review all the footage and commentary from CIG in regards to Star Marine...
      Then compare that to the information from the Kotaku UK article(s)
      The Khartu-al flap
      DFM/Arena Commander, the delay notice and what was released.
      Gamescon & the handling of CitizenCon-SQ42

   CIG has yet to introduce any real 'new', relatively stable 'playable' functionality since Arena Commander.

  'Seamless translations', 'Planetary Landing' etc..all vaporware until such time as it actually is 'patched' to their 'live' server.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StarBallz on November 24, 2016, 01:23:42 AM
I don't think this game was made to be a scam but it certainly lloks many times like it when you're selling so many ships for these incredible high prices.
They'll have a very hard time to get everything together as CR thinks it'll look like.
They haven't shown anything yet that would indicate a system they have in place that could work.

I'm not a fan of Derek but he's just right, it's all smoke & mirrors, will never ever get done the way CR dreamed it up.

And please stop comparing this game to other games that took a very long time to develop, like GTA, Diablo and so on. Those are professional companies that developed and more important delivered feasible features and games. And I'm still surprised that many companies want to make the next big MMO, focus on producing quality first before going mental.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: AP on November 24, 2016, 02:22:48 AM
I promise if this were to implode it will not affect my day to day at all.

It would ruin my whole week, I wouldn't get any work done watching people who've spent thousands on a game that will never come out running around and screaming on the internet.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 24, 2016, 07:59:55 AM
Chris is as passionate about games as Derek is and you can be sure Derek leads in the same way as Chris. His vision is the vision. Perhaps this is why there is so much discord, because Chris has managed to harness the ability to create the game he loves and knows that others love as well. Derek unfortunately has not had this opportunity.

I'm not sure what precisely you were thinking when you posted that.

First of all, I "lead" nothing like him. I have a small crew of indies, including third-party contractors. You don't see anyone running around screaming about how I "lead". I'm a "hands off" type of leader. And that's because when I embark on a project, I have clear goals, a schedule - and a vision. Each member in the team knows  precisely what we're aiming for, and nothing - ever - changes mid-stream, and which would put the project at risk. I never deviate from that. Which is why, decades later, I have different types of games (http://3000ad.com/games/) all in the same IP that I created decades ago including space sim combat (Battlecruiser/Universal Combat), FPS (All Aspect Warfare), Aerial combat (Angle Of Attack), RTS (Line Of Defense Tactics), combined arms (All Aspect Warfare, Line Of Defense) etc - it's all cohesive, never strays from the norm. And I don't reach for the unreachable.

Chris hasn't "managed to harness the ability to create the game he loves" because he hasn't CREATED IT!. And by all accounts, NEVER WILL.

You, like most, are confusing money with abilities. I have built my games - with my own money - for decades now. The games are out there being bought and played by those who like those kinds of games and who share my vision. I don't have a Leprechaun chained in my basement shitting Gold coins. My business makes its money from my games. So even if 10 people buy my game, that's 10 people who did so for a reason. On the other hand, Star Citizen - as pitched - can never be built. This has already been PROVEN without a doubt, as per the fact that 4yrs + $134 million later, not only is it not even 15% completed, but many promised features have either been cut, walked back or never going to be done. These are all FACTS.

Comparing me to Chris, is just as bad as comparing Star Citizen to Line Of Defense. It's a bullshit non-starter. Get a grip.

They dont need to buy time, they can take all the time they like. And lets remember they dont want to take up all the time. They want to release the game, they really do.

This is the same nonsense that you guys keep spouting. It's rubbish. No, they "can't take all the time they like". I mean seriously; where do you get this from? Why do you think they keep resorting to desperate measures to keep raising money? Now, we are at the end of 2016, and as I said in the OP, they have not shown ANYTHING tangible for a project which, by end of Dec, would have been funded to the tune of over $30 million dollars.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: TylerDurd0n on November 24, 2016, 01:33:53 PM
The disconnect is only in one place - Chris.  Aside from Wing Commander (a game made so long ago it shipped on 5.25" floppy disks) his history is mixed at best.  Once he milked the good will out of his original franchise, he ran everything else into the ground.  Even Freelancer, his last reasonable foray into gaming, had to be taken from him and released by a real production company.  That was in 2000 - 16 years ago.

This is an understandable stance to take if you have never developed video games before. While agreed he produced games 16 years ago those games were very successful when released and seem to be still enjoyed to this day. The Wing Commander Series was an excellent set of games when released. Having been around for when they were released they were some of the best games available to play on the systems at the time. Origin as a whole was producing fantastic games in that era. Game design is like riding a bike, you do not forget how to do it. What Chris may lack in technical understanding he makes up for by hiring people that can fill those voids and get the job done.

Honest question: Have you developed and/or released games? I've seen remarks like that on the forums as well as on the subreddit and most of them don't align with my experience in the industry or that of my peers. I've seen backers telling actual (anonymous) game developers that they have no clue about game development.

Game design is evolving constantly and the pace has only increased in recent years. While developing a game at least a few competitors will come up with amazing ideas and solutions to design problems you are currently facing and you know that you can't do anything about it and have to ship a game with a less-then-great part of your design. That's "normal", because you need to release a game and can't play "catch-up" all the time (also because you normally don't have unlimited time and/or money - and that's a good thing™).

It takes 1-2 games to change the landscape and player expectations with it. Look at the rise of MOBAs. Starcraft's not the biggest eSports game around anymore, as MOBAs' razor-sharp focus on team play and your single (!) unit has overtaken it massively. Blizzard was fortunate enough to identify the toxicity and elitism of LoL's player base as something they can exploit with their more "noob"-friendly HOTS (and MOBAs itself are a poster child for the more modern "release early/iterate often" school of game development).

And that's just one example of many. Look at how ridiculous weapon customisation has become in modern military shooters. How action-oriented western RPGs have become. The rise of companion apps or websites.

CR himself noted that he "needs" to release a game by 2014 to avoid it becoming stale. He was right. But then the money came rolling in and for some reason he thought abandoning that plan was a good choice. Now they're playing catch-up.

And let's put down those rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Wing Commander - gameplay-wise that game was ok. It delivered a cinematic experience and combined spaceflight gameplay with a pulp SciFi story. But it (as much as it's successors) was never a joy to play - how they didn't even think about improving that janky, twitchy spaceflight at all boggles my mind.

Since that time Chris has not been in the gaming industry, and has not learned anything during his absence.  Now that he's back, he's literally reinventing and rediscovering almost two decades of gaming lessons first hand, not because gaming best practices have failed to evolve, but because he doesn't think any game developers over a near 20 year period have anything to teach him.
That arrogance led him to commit an extraordinary amount of his backer money into lavish offices in 4 countries across the world, filling them with the accumulated bric-a-brac that actual development companies, such as Blizzard, had to earn over decades of hard work and actual produced, shipped, and commercially successful products and IPs.  He skipped all that and went straight for the appearance of success.  CIG, as an entity, has no games to its name, shipped or otherwise.

CIG needs offices to work, having non-dumpy offices help get work done as employees enjoy working in a nice space. As well, when moving forward and looking to the future all capital expenses around offices only help with optics when it comes to attracting other investors. Would you want to work in a dump? Bric-a-brac will come in from everyone that works there. Game developers are notorious for bringing in man dolls and the like.

Nobody cares about the bric-a-brac that devs bring to the office, but what he's alluding to is the massive amount of stuff that's on display in the offices for a game that isn't even out yet. Calling them out for spending money on that is often construed as expecting them to sit in unheated huts, but that's a logical fallacy. Of course they need decent offices, but what CIG does ($20k coffee machines or not) veers into "lavish office" territory. And if all you got is backer money, I don't think that a certain amount of decency with regards to how you spend that money would hurt.

They could of course release financial statements that prove that no backer money had been spent on the ship models, posters, expensive desks, sofas, spaceship doors, etc.. Yet they rather chose to refund people's pledges than show some numbers, so there you go.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is no documentation or plan for what the actual game systems are, but instead, what we have are nothing more than potential game assets, that Chris, being out of the industry for too long and refusing to listen to people who know more than him, thinks will plug together like Lego bricks and a game will pop out.  The engine is a Frankenstein's monster of garbled code that's barely holding at the seams.  Rather than being the typical state of a pre-alpha, CIG's engine, in contrast, gets weaker and more prone to catastrophic failure with every patch.

Never, ever, ever, ;) has a game developer ever released design docs while working on a project. Those are 100% internal documents ment for employees eyes only. Seeing as none of us work at CIG we are unfit to comment on the state of the current game design. Chris has also employed people from the current industry who know how to make games. And yes he is listening to them. Work is getting done. The fact that they have taken Cryengine and refactored the bejezus out of it shows you they have talent on their team. They are using an engine that has a great foundation. This is to be applauded because they have chosen not to re-invent the wheel but have instead adopted and re-engineered a wicked engine. As well the have engineers from Crytek itself who know this tech inside and out, which explains the things they have been able to do in the game.

Never, ever, ever, has a developer raised $130 million in crowdfunding, used that money to open 4 studios world wide, booked The Imaginarium for performance capture sessions with a Hollywood cast and 4 years later (if you're generous) hasn't delivered anything that resembles a product with working game systems. People tout that CIG is doing what nobody has tried/done before and that's why people should believe in it. How about fulfilling that "open development" promise for once, communicating setbacks, stupid mistakes, rollbacks, roadblocks, design issues, redesigns - you know all the things that happen during development that sometimes set you back to square one. How about being open about this right when it happens and not when it can't be avoided anymore (remember that Star Marine was "just weeks away" before being scrapped after months of silence)?

Being truly open about these things would also be something that nobody has tried/done before and it sure would be appreciated. That's why so many consider "The Pledge" to be unfulfilled/broken by CIG. I've experienced first hand what can and will go wrong during game development, yet none of these things ever came up in CIG's coverage.

Now - the engine. Choosing CryEngine was a questionable choice (why would you chose the engine with the comparably smallest dev community and thus lowest amount of available experience in the industry) right from the start. It wasn't exactly perfect for the original pitch, but it had the benefit of saving costs which - for a crowdfunded game - was appreciated.

But the moment that CIG chose to balloon the scope of the game, they should've thought long and hard about keeping that engine. At times it seems that the engine itself is actively fighting against CIG, exposing bugs and glitches the more they're changing it. The cruft that it has amassed over the years must be horrible (and whenever I see parts of the source code on Bugsmashers I get cold shivers).

Hindsight is 20/20 but I (and many others) thought that this engine was not a great choice in 2012. So far it hasn't proven us wrong.

Chris, in short, has no idea how to turn the ideas in his head into the game he's promised.  He knows where he wants to be, but has no idea how to get there.  That makes him an inappropriate steward of backer cash.  Regardless of whether or not he came up with the idea, whether or not he's the visionary, all that is secondary - if he can't turn that vision into reality, and hand the reins of development and leadership to a competent individual and retain a position as lead designer, rather than CIG godhead, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Star Citizen can fulfill its potential.

I would disagree. They are making progress and building a foundation. As I stated before, in game development you find as you go along goals move. What you once thought was awesome and sweet can now become even awesomer and sweeter. They have a plan, they are executing it, it just isnt happening as publicly or as transparently as you would like. Got it. Well unfortunately that is how game development goes. They are not required to disclose everything to you. And yes I understand that people may be backers, but you backed the game to be released and not how it gets developed. And fortunately if this is something someone does not like, they can back out and get a refund. What is strange is the level of hate being generated by those who no longer agree with the game. You are 100% allowed to not want the game or even like how it is unfolding, but ad hominem attacks on Chris's character or his ability is strange. Have you ever even spoken to him, have you developed games at his level before? I believe not judging someone before walking a mile in their shoes might be a better way to approach this.

Well The Pledge that CR posted right after the first round of funding was achieved likes to have a word with you:

Quote from: ChrisRoberts
We, the Star Citizen team at Cloud Imperium, hereby promise to deliver the game you expect.

(cont'd)

We, the Developer, intend to treat you with the same respect we would give a publisher. You will receive regular updates about the progress of the game.

I've worked with investors/publishers and did pitches or regular dev updates for them. If I had been as "open" as CIG is, they would have demanded a change of leadership of the company and installed one of theirs to do oversight and keep us in check.

Analogies are a dime a dozen, but if Tesla behaved like CIG, they would still work on building the factory that produces the robots that one day will manufacture the Model S you pledged for and in the meantime have chosen that they also need to reinvent the actual construction robots.

---

Again I don't know if those that tell others that they don't understand game development have ever worked in the industry before. And I can just speak from my experience in software and game development. So naturally my experience and knowledge is limited. But the image that is purported in the SC community is at times a gross misrepresentation of


among other things.

"Better is the enemy of good" and "perfection is achieved not when there's nothing to add, but when there's nothing left to remove" are as true as ever. Both are hard lessons to learn. Both help you in delivering actual products. Both assist you in "letting go". Those are good things! Constraints and deadlines fuel creativity. And they force you to come up with "good enough" solutions to focus on the bigger picture (which is a final product).

The reason us other developers don't chase those "impossible" (lol) solutions for the most part is not because they're "impossible" but rather that they're not worth it. If needed you can fake it and the player will never now (mostly because she usually just doesn't care). The time saved there can then be spent on other things.

CIG is therefore just another example of why crowdfunding the game development heroes of yesteryear is a bad idea for the most part. They go on and on about how publishers and investors have stifled their creativity and how their "disappointing" games could've been so much better. And big enough parts of the audience drank that kool-aid (the superiority complex of PC gamers probably helped as well).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 24, 2016, 02:39:52 PM
I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

I fail to see the MMO side in star citizen. Crashes when 5 people connect.... how is this an MMO!

I think that would be LoD though. And regardless of what it is now, because development, it is aiming to have a persistent universe where everyone plays in. And that is in fact per definition a MMO.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 05:20:42 AM

*snip*

I've worked with investors/publishers and did pitches or regular dev updates for them. If I had been as "open" as CIG is, they would have demanded a change of leadership of the company and installed one of theirs to do oversight and keep us in check.

Analogies are a dime a dozen, but if Tesla behaved like CIG, they would still work on building the factory that produces the robots that one day will manufacture the Model S you pledged for and in the meantime have chosen that they also need to reinvent the actual construction robots.

*snip*

The reason us other developers don't chase those "impossible" (lol) solutions for the most part is not because they're "impossible" but rather that they're not worth it. If needed you can fake it and the player will never now (mostly because she usually just doesn't care). The time saved there can then be spent on other things.

CIG is therefore just another example of why crowdfunding the game development heroes of yesteryear is a bad idea for the most part. They go on and on about how publishers and investors have stifled their creativity and how their "disappointing" games could've been so much better. And big enough parts of the audience drank that kool-aid (the superiority complex of PC gamers probably helped as well).

Just want to say that this was an excellent post that touched every single piece of argument these guys bring up and which for some reason they can't quite reconcile.

The part that is really annoying is that they go on about why all this money is a "good" thing, because it means he can make the game he wants, how they are "open" about development, how it's great the don't have the "burden" of a publisher, they are "building" offices and a time, that they are building the tech that would make all these dreams magically possible. Never in my almost 30+ year industry history, have I come across something like this. They are in complete and utter denial; even as 4-5 years and $134 million later, with promise after promise being broken, no game in sight, they still won't accept the fact that the failure of this project is a clear and present danger. They simply refuse to accept it; and they will argue tooth and and nail about why WE are wrong. And they still have NO game.

I think people see a game in development. Beyond that, I can't think of a game that has the features SC combined into one seamless game.

There is no MMO space sim with first person where you can walk around on every ship while it flies with thousands of miles per hours through a system, have a fire fight on board whilst other ships try to blast holes in it from the outside. I mean, maybe there is one, but I guess I have missed that. :psyduck:

I fail to see the MMO side in star citizen. Crashes when 5 people connect.... how is this an MMO!

I think that would be LoD though. And regardless of what it is now, because development, it is aiming to have a persistent universe where everyone plays in. And that is in fact per definition a MMO.

They won't even think or mention LoD though. Because you know, it doesn't have the benefit of $134 million budget and 500+ devs all of which amount only to fancy graphics. Aside from the fact that the game already has a 100% persistent world with no instancing or sharding. But just wait and see what happens in the coming months. That's why I don't even bother arguing with them about LoD.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 09:18:25 AM
After $134 meelion, CIG has discovered rocks. Watch @ 5:40, then go buy an Idris (while supplies last!)


(http://i.imgur.com/vH1DDyj.gif)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 09:56:08 AM
I'm guessing that 2.6 wont' be hitting Evocati then. And 3.0 is still MIA; aside from the fact that CIG doesn't even talk about it anymore. Remember what I wrote back on Nov 2nd (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4757) about the status of both these patches?

The minute I saw this bullshit schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report), I knew it was just that: bullshit.

Meanwhile, still no word on the status of the much touted 3.0 (aka Jesus Patch) which was due end of the year.

(http://www.dereksmart.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/sc-rm-2-6-1024x512.jpg)

(http://www.dereksmart.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sc-rm-3-0-1024x650.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 11:55:03 AM
Full damage control mode activated.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 25, 2016, 02:19:49 PM

I think that would be LoD though. And regardless of what it is now, because development, it is aiming to have a persistent universe where everyone plays in. And that is in fact per definition a MMO.

They won't even think or mention LoD though. Because you know, it doesn't have the benefit of $134 million budget and 500+ devs all of which amount only to fancy graphics. Aside from the fact that the game already has a 100% persistent world with no instancing or sharding. But just wait and see what happens in the coming months. That's why I don't even bother arguing with them about LoD.

What exactly about LoD is persistent? Character progression, base building, point capturing, weapon custimazation? While having "seamless" loading screens?
I can't remember any of those. No, not being persistent. Being existent in the ..game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 03:25:29 PM

I think that would be LoD though. And regardless of what it is now, because development, it is aiming to have a persistent universe where everyone plays in. And that is in fact per definition a MMO.

They won't even think or mention LoD though. Because you know, it doesn't have the benefit of $134 million budget and 500+ devs all of which amount only to fancy graphics. Aside from the fact that the game already has a 100% persistent world with no instancing or sharding. But just wait and see what happens in the coming months. That's why I don't even bother arguing with them about LoD.

What exactly about LoD is persistent? Character progression, base building, point capturing, weapon custimazation? While having "seamless" loading screens?
I can't remember any of those. No, not being persistent. Being existent in the ..game.

Do you know what "persistent" means, within the context of a game? Start there.

To answer your question. Everything in LoD is persistent because it was designed that way from the ground up and from the very start. The world, the server state, the player state (stats, weapons, inventory etc) etc - all of it. That's what an MMO is. If you'd played it, you would know that. http://lodgame.com
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 03:33:17 PM
So CIG updated the schedule. It's hilarious.

And apparently the calendar they used to create it the first time, had no knowledge of holidays.

The FUN:

Quote
GFORCES
This has been added to the scope of 2.6.0
Work has been completed by code and is now in progress with Animation.
Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, we expect that we won’t be able to set up a review until late next week
ETA is 2nd December
===
NETWORK – BIND CULLING
Due to some difficult to solve bugs progress has been slowed down on bind culling. This is because it’s proved extremely difficult to reproduce the bugs and find out the cause them.
Progress was also slowed due supporting bug fixes for the Livestream
ETA is 8th December (delayed from 23rd November)
===
There has been some delay in progress over the last week that has impacted the push to the Evocati, the issues have come up due to what we call our “Inclusions Process”. This is a process by which we select the various files and folders that we want to be in the build, and allow us to keep out any files that relate to work still in progress we’re not ready to release yet. This is a slow and manual process that is not without error as we have experienced this week, and also slowed further with the US offices being out on Thursday and Friday for Thanksgiving. However, we’re happy to say that we do seem to be over the worst of this now and are in a good position to catch the last of these problems next week

OLD

(https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/11/Image004.png)

NEW

(http://i.imgur.com/tZF8Rh2.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 25, 2016, 04:26:11 PM

What exactly about LoD is persistent? Character progression, base building, point capturing, weapon custimazation? While having "seamless" loading screens?
I can't remember any of those. No, not being persistent. Being existent in the ..game.

Do you know what "persistent" means, within the context of a game? Start there.

To answer your question. Everything in LoD is persistent because it was designed that way from the ground up and from the very start. The world, the server state, the player state (stats, weapons, inventory etc) etc - all of it. That's what an MMO is. If you'd played it, you would know that. http://lodgame.com

Okay then, let's assume for a moment we have two different ideas what the definition of persistent means for the user in a game.
For me that would be for an unrelated example: "Go in the game, destroy a house, get a modification for your gun and exp for your character. When you log of and come back two weeks later the house is still gone (if no one rebuilt it), you still have the mod and the exp on the character."

I played LoD several hours. I found nothing at all besides perhaps broken leaderboards that showed any kind of persistency.
In the game was nothing to capture. Nothing to change on my character. The only weapons I got beyond my starting weapons disappeared once I left the current map or relogged. When I tried to enter space with a ship I got blown away instantly. The only thing I could imagine that could somehow persist where I was not able to test it was the bodies of other dead players.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 25, 2016, 05:09:59 PM

What exactly about LoD is persistent? Character progression, base building, point capturing, weapon custimazation? While having "seamless" loading screens?
I can't remember any of those. No, not being persistent. Being existent in the ..game.

Do you know what "persistent" means, within the context of a game? Start there.

To answer your question. Everything in LoD is persistent because it was designed that way from the ground up and from the very start. The world, the server state, the player state (stats, weapons, inventory etc) etc - all of it. That's what an MMO is. If you'd played it, you would know that. http://lodgame.com

Okay then, let's assume for a moment we have two different ideas what the definition of persistent means for the user in a game.
For me that would be for an unrelated example: "Go in the game, destroy a house, get a modification for your gun and exp for your character. When you log of and come back two weeks later the house is still gone (if no one rebuilt it), you still have the mod and the exp on the character."

There is only one definition of persistent in a game. Star Citizen didn't invent it, nor have they implemented it. Game is still instanced. So there is that.

Quote
I played LoD several hours. I found nothing at all besides

You have to be specific. What did you expect to "find"?

What has this to do with persistence?

Quote
perhaps broken leaderboards that showed any kind of persistency.

The leaderboards (http://lodgame.com/leaderboards/) work just fine. They always did. Unless you have a TAK account (http://lodgame.com/faqs/start/), your stats won't show on it.

Quote
In the game was nothing to capture.

Such as? There is no capture mechanic in the game, because the world event isn't implemented yet (http://lodgame.com/faqs/world-events/).

What has this to do with persistence?

Quote
Nothing to change on my character.

You're talking about player customization - which the game doesn't have, nor support (http://lodgame.com/faqs/will-i-be-able-to-customize-my-character/).

What has this to do with persistence?

Quote
The only weapons I got beyond my starting weapons disappeared once I left the current map or relogged.

Your inventory is 100% persistent. You always have it.

Anything you pickup in the world, doesn't carry over when you change scenes. That's by design - and that restriction is currently placed on both Starter Kit and TAK accounts for testing and game balancing reasons as indicated here - at the top (http://lodgame.com/changelog/). In the final game, only the Starter Kit will have this restriction.

What has this to do with persistence?

Quote
When I tried to enter space with a ship I got blown away instantly.

That's patently false. Unless you haven't played the Build 00.09.07.15 released on 16-10-04 and which completed Phase I of the space defense systems which only allowed them to fire when fired upon. During implementation and testing, they fired at any target within range.

What has this to do with persistence?

Quote
The only thing I could imagine that could somehow persist where I was not able to test it was the bodies of other dead players.

Dead bodies don't and shouldn't linger. For performance and respawn reasons, they are removed after a few seconds. Just like in every single game, persistent or not.

Again, what has this got to do with persistence? Here, let me help you with that:


Those are the building blocks of a "persistent" game. The entire LoD game world is 100% persistent; which is why you can login to the server at any time, and it would still be running, and on the planet it could be any time of day (dawn, dusk, night etc). You can login see a client or asset in one place, log out, log back in, go to that location and interact with the same client|asset if it's still there. And it was designed and developed that way (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/) - from the ground up - before we even put any assets in it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 26, 2016, 08:09:41 AM
Again, what has this got to do with persistence? Here, let me help you with that:

  • player state
  • player stats
  • player inventory
  • world state
  • server state
  • jump-in / jump out

Those are the building blocks of a "persistent" game. The entire LoD game world is 100% persistent; which is why you can login to the server at any time, and it would still be running, and on the planet it could be any time of day (dawn, dusk, night etc). You can login see a client or asset in one place, log out, log back in, go to that location and interact with the same client|asset if it's still there. And it was designed and developed that way (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/) - from the ground up - before we even put any assets in it.

Alright, so you're saying that the player inventory is persistent and so is the LoD game world to 100%. Now if I pick up weapons from a crate, they go into my inventory, right? When I relogged (or the game crashed randomly), those weapons were gone everytime. To your definition I could "login to the server at any time", and my inventory, because persistent, would still be the one from before when I logged out. What is persistent are the starting weapons I had based on my starting kit. But nothing I picked up in the game was ever carried between two sessions. I always had to pick up new guns when I reentered a map.

When I said "there was nothing" I was referring to the assets you talk about. I mean, what exactly is there on a map to interact with? Weapon crates, medi kits and I think the prison cells on that one carrier.

For changing things on my character: This goes both for visuals like the skins you linked there (which apparently are not in the game so we can't say anything about persistence there) or character progression as described here in the FAQhttp://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png (http://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png). So far I can't find any of that in the game.

To summarize: My points dare to question where persistency is in effect in this game. I named examples where it could be, but isn't.

So what exactly is persistent in that game besides 100% which apparently isn't? That it is one server running 24/7 regardless of how many people are playing? That on that 24/7 server is a timer for when the sun is up and when not? Because that is everything besides aircrafts that actually ever changes the position as far as I can tell.

However, nothing of the character is ever saved between sessions. When I create a character and play for a few hours it means fuck all because as soon as I relog my progress is gone. And given that there are no server events means that this is another point where nothing is happening.

When I log into the game, there must be some reason to do it. Some goal. But without any events or targets to go for, with no progression system at all why would anybody play this game? What is this game then about? Planetside 2 has both. I can level my character, unlock class traits (and switch between classes), unlock weapons and attachements for aircrafts, vehicles and handheld weaponry while playing in a truly persistent enviroment where not only my stats are registered on leaderboards and rewards are gained that persist between sessions. But also every single continent has it's three-faction war with ever changing frontlines that are resembled by capture points across said continents.

From what I gathered that LoD is trying to sell here it is pretty much that, but with a somewhat different setting and the additional layer of space combat - that to my expierence has the same flight model as something other a continent.

Which also makes me think: Why should I go and sit in a fighter and fly around in space? For what reason?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 26, 2016, 09:54:24 AM
Again, what has this got to do with persistence? Here, let me help you with that:

  • player state
  • player stats
  • player inventory
  • world state
  • server state
  • jump-in / jump out

Those are the building blocks of a "persistent" game. The entire LoD game world is 100% persistent; which is why you can login to the server at any time, and it would still be running, and on the planet it could be any time of day (dawn, dusk, night etc). You can login see a client or asset in one place, log out, log back in, go to that location and interact with the same client|asset if it's still there. And it was designed and developed that way (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/) - from the ground up - before we even put any assets in it.

Quote
Alright, so you're saying that the player inventory is persistent and so is the LoD game world to 100%.

Yes

Quote
Now if I pick up weapons from a crate, they go into my inventory, right?

Yes - or you won't be able to use/equip them.

Any item you start the game with (e.g. default Starter Kit or TAK items), or pick up in the game world, becomes part of your inventory.

As previously mentioned, currently (due to on-going dev and testing) items picked up in the world or in a pack/crate, are not preserved when you move from one scene (e.g. Heatwave) to another (e.g. Arkangel). Which is also why, when you logout, they are also removed because you don't "own" them. What you "own" is i) what comes in the kit (Starter|TAK) you purchased ii) what you buy in the item shop (via the supply platform) - which is why only those items are preserved/stored in your inventory.

Quote
When I relogged (or the game crashed randomly), those weapons were gone everytime.

A game crashing has no relevance to your inventory storage because it's not stored client-side (on your machine). It's stored on the dB server as soon as you pick it up or if you already own it.

Quote
To your definition I could "login to the server at any time", and my inventory, because persistent, would still be the one from before when I logged out. What is persistent are the starting weapons I had based on my starting kit. But nothing I picked up in the game was ever carried between two sessions. I always had to pick up new guns when I reentered a map.

This was already explained in my previous post; and also above.

Quote
When I said "there was nothing" I was referring to the assets you talk about. I mean, what exactly is there on a map to interact with? Weapon crates, medi kits and I think the prison cells on that one carrier.

If you know how the game works (try reading the docs maybe? (http://lodgame.com/docs/)), you would know what you can interact with, how etc. The game is pure PvP; so there are no missions, quests etc - hence nothing in the world to interact with other than other players, items, weapons, terminals, aircraft, vehicles etc.

e.g. if you want an asset (aircraft or vehicle), you go create it a supply platform. The detention hold in the Starguard carrier are part of a game mechanic related to the Hostile Incarceration (already implemented and works) World Event.

And in the upcoming updates (http://lodgame.com/changelog/) related to the ground vehicles and planetary defense systems, you will be able to use any/all ground vehicles - just like aircraft.

Quote
For changing things on my character: This goes both for visuals like the skins you linked there (which apparently are not in the game so we can't say anything about persistence there)

I already answered this question which is already in the FAQ entry previously linked (http://lodgame.com/faqs/will-i-be-able-to-customize-my-character/).


No.

You can only customize your class.

You will be able to buy one of four (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue) different color schemes for your player’s armor and which you can switch to any time in real-time.


Quote
or character progression as described here in the FAQhttp://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png (http://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png). So far I can't find any of that in the game.

I already answered this question which is already in the FAQ entry previously linked (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-character-progression-handled/).


Character progression is handled in various ways:

Combat Kills:You accumulate these based on combat actions against the enemy.

Combat Experience Points:Through various combat actions (e.g. kills), you gain CEP.

Ranks:The accumulation of CEP awards you various combat ranks and decorations (medals, ribbons). These are also dynamic; in that depending on your CEP count, you can lose rank and decorations over time.

Combat Training Certificates: These are used to improve certain character attributes and skills.
The combination of CEP and CTC is critical to character progression and the combination allows you to build up your character class as you see fit. You can chose to be a stealth player (sniper) whose sole purpose is to aggravate the forces behind enemy lines, while sneaking around and hacking into base units. Or you can choose to be heavy infantry guy with various weapons of mass destruction.

More info: What are CEP and CTC


Quote
To summarize: My points dare to question where persistency is in effect in this game. I named examples where it could be, but isn't.

And you were wrong in every instance. Maybe try reading it all again.

Quote
So what exactly is persistent in that game besides 100% which apparently isn't? That it is one server running 24/7 regardless of how many people are playing? That on that 24/7 server is a timer for when the sun is up and when not? Because that is everything besides aircrafts that actually ever changes the position as far as I can tell.

Wrong. See above

Quote
However, nothing of the character is ever saved between sessions. When I create a character and play for a few hours it means fuck all because as soon as I relog my progress is gone. And given that there are no server events means that this is another point where nothing is happening.

Wrong. See above

Quote
When I log into the game, there must be some reason to do it. Some goal. But without any events or targets to go for, with no progression system at all why would anybody play this game?


The game is still in development. And it's pure PvP.

Quote
What is this game then about? Planetside 2 has both. I can level my character, unlock class traits (and switch between classes), unlock weapons and attachements for aircrafts, vehicles and handheld weaponry while playing in a truly persistent enviroment where not only my stats are registered on leaderboards and rewards are gained that persist between sessions. But also every single continent has it's three-faction war with ever changing frontlines that are resembled by capture points across said continents.

Planetside 2 is a finished game. And we're not making Planetside 2 (plus, we already have All Aspect Warfare); so ofc it has different game modes and features e.g.

- we don't have/need/want "frontlines" because that's not how the game works or was designed
- leaderboards work just fine
- character progression (leveling) works just fine
- character inventory system and stats work just fine
- all the implemented weapons, attachments and items, all work just fine
- all the aircraft work just fine; and vehicles are upcoming
- the World Events (gameplay PvP mods) are designed based on the game's core mechanic

Quote
From what I gathered that LoD is trying to sell here it is pretty much that, but with a somewhat different setting and the additional layer of space combat - that to my expierence has the same flight model as something other a continent.

That argument is like saying Battlefield 1 is like Call Of Duty. It's a silly one.

Quote
Which also makes me think: Why should I go and sit in a fighter and fly around in space? For what reason?

If you don't know why you want to be in a game, there is no reason for you to be playing it. So don't?

The fighter mechanics, unlike the repetitive "go-flip-a-switch" nonsense, are there for PvP space combat. And it's not just between clients, but also against faction owned stations and the carrier which are part of the game's World Events. Those mechanics work just fine. There are no "missions" because it's not that kind of game; wasn't designed to be, and isn't going to be.

Just like all my games, LoD, unlike that other game, isn't trying to, nor aspiring to cater to everyone, nor is it pitched or designed to be a game that's all things to everyone - let alone a BDSSE. It has a specific and distinct focus, and target audience that are not subject to change. You either like it or you don't. If you don't, don't buy it, don't play it. There are many other games to choose from.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JohnGorno on November 26, 2016, 12:47:56 PM
Again, what has this got to do with persistence? Here, let me help you with that:

  • player state
  • player stats
  • player inventory
  • world state
  • server state
  • jump-in / jump out

Those are the building blocks of a "persistent" game. The entire LoD game world is 100% persistent; which is why you can login to the server at any time, and it would still be running, and on the planet it could be any time of day (dawn, dusk, night etc). You can login see a client or asset in one place, log out, log back in, go to that location and interact with the same client|asset if it's still there. And it was designed and developed that way (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/) - from the ground up - before we even put any assets in it.

Quote
Alright, so you're saying that the player inventory is persistent and so is the LoD game world to 100%.

Yes

Quote
Now if I pick up weapons from a crate, they go into my inventory, right?

Yes - or you won't be able to use/equip them.

Any item you start the game with (e.g. default Starter Kit or TAK items), or pick up in the game world, becomes part of your inventory.

As previously mentioned, currently (due to on-going dev and testing) items picked up in the world or in a pack/crate, are not preserved when you move from one scene (e.g. Heatwave) to another (e.g. Arkangel). Which is also why, when you logout, they are also removed because you don't "own" them. What you "own" is i) what comes in the kit (Starter|TAK) you purchased ii) what you buy in the item shop (via the supply platform) - which is why only those items are preserved/stored in your inventory.

Quote
When I relogged (or the game crashed randomly), those weapons were gone everytime.

A game crashing has no relevance to your inventory storage because it's not stored client-side (on your machine). It's stored on the dB server as soon as you pick it up or if you already own it.

Quote
To your definition I could "login to the server at any time", and my inventory, because persistent, would still be the one from before when I logged out. What is persistent are the starting weapons I had based on my starting kit. But nothing I picked up in the game was ever carried between two sessions. I always had to pick up new guns when I reentered a map.

This was already explained in my previous post; and also above.

Quote
When I said "there was nothing" I was referring to the assets you talk about. I mean, what exactly is there on a map to interact with? Weapon crates, medi kits and I think the prison cells on that one carrier.

If you know how the game works (try reading the docs maybe? (http://lodgame.com/docs/)), you would know what you can interact with, how etc. The game is pure PvP; so there are no missions, quests etc - hence nothing in the world to interact with other than other players, items, weapons, terminals, aircraft, vehicles etc.

e.g. if you want an asset (aircraft or vehicle), you go create it a supply platform. The detention hold in the Starguard carrier are part of a game mechanic related to the Hostile Incarceration (already implemented and works) World Event.

And in the upcoming updates (http://lodgame.com/changelog/) related to the ground vehicles and planetary defense systems, you will be able to use any/all ground vehicles - just like aircraft.

Quote
For changing things on my character: This goes both for visuals like the skins you linked there (which apparently are not in the game so we can't say anything about persistence there)

I already answered this question which is already in the FAQ entry previously linked (http://lodgame.com/faqs/will-i-be-able-to-customize-my-character/).


No.

You can only customize your class.

You will be able to buy one of four (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue) different color schemes for your player’s armor and which you can switch to any time in real-time.


Quote
or character progression as described here in the FAQhttp://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png (http://i.imgur.com/UFBCYIn.png). So far I can't find any of that in the game.

I already answered this question which is already in the FAQ entry previously linked (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-character-progression-handled/).


Character progression is handled in various ways:

Combat Kills:You accumulate these based on combat actions against the enemy.

Combat Experience Points:Through various combat actions (e.g. kills), you gain CEP.

Ranks:The accumulation of CEP awards you various combat ranks and decorations (medals, ribbons). These are also dynamic; in that depending on your CEP count, you can lose rank and decorations over time.

Combat Training Certificates: These are used to improve certain character attributes and skills.
The combination of CEP and CTC is critical to character progression and the combination allows you to build up your character class as you see fit. You can chose to be a stealth player (sniper) whose sole purpose is to aggravate the forces behind enemy lines, while sneaking around and hacking into base units. Or you can choose to be heavy infantry guy with various weapons of mass destruction.

More info: What are CEP and CTC


Quote
To summarize: My points dare to question where persistency is in effect in this game. I named examples where it could be, but isn't.

And you were wrong in every instance. Maybe try reading it all again.

Quote
So what exactly is persistent in that game besides 100% which apparently isn't? That it is one server running 24/7 regardless of how many people are playing? That on that 24/7 server is a timer for when the sun is up and when not? Because that is everything besides aircrafts that actually ever changes the position as far as I can tell.

Wrong. See above

Quote
However, nothing of the character is ever saved between sessions. When I create a character and play for a few hours it means fuck all because as soon as I relog my progress is gone. And given that there are no server events means that this is another point where nothing is happening.

Wrong. See above

Quote
When I log into the game, there must be some reason to do it. Some goal. But without any events or targets to go for, with no progression system at all why would anybody play this game?


The game is still in development. And it's pure PvP.

Quote
What is this game then about? Planetside 2 has both. I can level my character, unlock class traits (and switch between classes), unlock weapons and attachements for aircrafts, vehicles and handheld weaponry while playing in a truly persistent enviroment where not only my stats are registered on leaderboards and rewards are gained that persist between sessions. But also every single continent has it's three-faction war with ever changing frontlines that are resembled by capture points across said continents.

Planetside 2 is a finished game. And we're not making Planetside 2 (plus, we already have All Aspect Warfare); so ofc it has different game modes and features e.g.

- we don't have/need/want "frontlines" because that's not how the game works or was designed
- leaderboards work just fine
- character progression (leveling) works just fine
- character inventory system and stats work just fine
- all the implemented weapons, attachments and items, all work just fine
- all the aircraft work just fine; and vehicles are upcoming
- the World Events (gameplay PvP mods) are designed based on the game's core mechanic

Quote
From what I gathered that LoD is trying to sell here it is pretty much that, but with a somewhat different setting and the additional layer of space combat - that to my expierence has the same flight model as something other a continent.

That argument is like saying Battlefield 1 is like Call Of Duty. It's a silly one.

Quote
Which also makes me think: Why should I go and sit in a fighter and fly around in space? For what reason?

If you don't know why you want to be in a game, there is no reason for you to be playing it. So don't?

The fighter mechanics, unlike the repetitive "go-flip-a-switch" nonsense, are there for PvP space combat. And it's not just between clients, but also against faction owned stations and the carrier which are part of the game's World Events. Those mechanics work just fine. There are no "missions" because it's not that kind of game; wasn't designed to be, and isn't going to be.

Just like all my games, LoD, unlike that other game, isn't trying to, nor aspiring to cater to everyone, nor is it pitched or designed to be a game that's all things to everyone - let alone a BDSSE. It has a specific and distinct focus, and target audience that are not subject to change. You either like it or you don't. If you don't, don't buy it, don't play it. There are many other games to choose from.

So to summarize the fact that in this 100% persistent game currently nothing of value besides leaderboards are persistent and things that are actually relevant like character progression are not. Or actual goals in the game like the server events where you at the one point say they are not in the game and then the next post that they're "already implemented and work"ing? You can link to your FAQ all you want, it doesn't change the fact that those printed words do not reflect the reality of those mechanics simply failing to be exist.

And when you pulled a Trump and only said "WRONG" you basically said that ther is not one server running 24/7 regardless of how many people are playing? That on that 24/7 server is no timer for when the sun is up and when not? Which together with the crates lying around at predetermined places that are not moveable and created aircrafts would be the only parts that actually showed persistency at any level here?

Also, I was wrong about that nothing about my character is saved? But then you said it yourself "Nothing about the character is saved"?

To the question "Why would anybody play the game if there is no content to achieve" you answered with "It's in development.". What are you trying to say with that? Since when is "being in development" the reason to play the game?

The comparison to PS2 is deflected with a BF1 to CoD comparison for what reasons exactly? The latter are vastly different in mapsizes, gamemodes, hell, CoD doesn't even have vehicles, only kill streaks. In Battlefield you are the Killstreak. For this comparison to be legit here you'd have to say that both games do not have (promised) fights on huge persistent ever changing maps on foot, on air and in vehicles, which they both try to achieve. The only difference here is that LoD also wants to feature naval warfare (which does not exist in the game) and the space settings which are the same aircrafts now in an area without the ground.

So yes, a comparison is VERY legit as there are design-wise at best with ever changing world events something else that LoD eventually wants to offer while PS2 strictly goes for PvP around capture points and ultimately continental lockdown.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 26, 2016, 05:07:20 PM
Before I respond to your latest, I would like to make a few things clear.

I know who you are, and I've seen the discussion and your involvement on Reddit (/r/ds) discussion regarding this forum/thread.

I had made it clear before (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=19.msg146#msg146), that this forum is not for the discussion of Line Of Defense; as there are no less than three official places to discuss it with those who actually own and are helping us playtest it.

From your statements, it is clear that you neither own, nor have you played LoD. Because anyone who has both owned and played it at some point in time, would have the answer to everything I already stated here; and would also know about the game, how it works etc - especially since it comes with full documentation (inline and on the website). All you're doing it taking statements from your band of brothers in an attempt to i) troll me ii) make a Star Citizen discussion, about LoD. This despite the fact that the games have nothing in common; other than the fact that they have a space component. To be clear, one is independently funded and will be completed, and the other is crowd-funding; and by all accounts, stands no such chance of ever being completed. The attempts to compare both games has always been a hilarious non-starter; but here we are.

Your arguments are ludicrous, and your trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, simply isn't going to work. When someone isn't willing to debate and discuss in good faith, it is pointless to continue to engage them because, as per your posts, nothing the other party says, will ever be acceptable because it goes against the narrative and the intent of the other party. People like that have no place here. Take that shit to Reddit and the RSI forums.

So...

So to summarize the fact that in this 100% persistent game currently nothing of value besides leaderboards are persistent and things that are actually relevant like character progression are not.


Wrong. You are free to ignore everything previously written, or the fact that the game (which you clearly haven't played) has all the elements previously mentioned - that won't change the facts.

Quote
Or actual goals in the game like the server events where you at the one point say they are not in the game and then the next post that they're "already implemented and work"ing? You can link to your FAQ all you want, it doesn't change the fact that those printed words do not reflect the reality of those mechanics simply failing to be exist.

Wrong. And clear evidence that you haven't played the game. If you had, you would know that the game has five World Events (http://lodgame.com/faqs/world-events/); two (Incursion, Hostile Incarceration) of which are already implemented and working. While the other three rely on components not yet implemented due to the fact that, well, the game is still in development (and we actually have an accurate roadmap (http://lodgame.com/roadmap/)).

And "character progression" has no relevance to the game modes. That involves EP (implemented) and ranks (NYI). Nothing else. There is no leveling up. There are no "skills". This is a pure twitch based PvP game with various character classes (all with unique attributes). And as much as you want to ignore the FAQ, character progression is accurately documented (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-character-progression-handled/) there as well.

So maybe try reading the "printed words" again. Slowly this time.

Quote
And when you pulled a Trump and only said "WRONG" you basically said that ther is not one server running 24/7 regardless of how many people are playing? That on that 24/7 server is no timer for when the sun is up and when not? Which together with the crates lying around at predetermined places that are not moveable and created aircrafts would be the only parts that actually showed persistency at any level here?

Those are your words. You can mangle them all you like, but it won't change what I've written, nor the facts.

The game is 100% persistent. It was designed and developed that way. It's not something that go cobbled on top.


WHAT IS LINE OF DEFENSE? (http://lodgame.com/faqs/what-is-line-of-defense/)

Line Of Defense is a multi-platform (PC, XBox One, PS4) sci-fi multiplayer online game in which two (Galactic Command military and Insurgent paramilitary) military teams wage a massive war. Battles take place on a planet and in space as fps infantry, or with the use of various air, land, sea, and space vehicles.

The game’s hybrid tech supports both dedicated server (standard massive multiplayer) as well as peer-to-peer (client hosts and plays) session hosting for PC and consoles. It supports a large number of players in a persistent, non-sharded, non-instanced, game world.

The game is designed and developed by the small indie team at 3000AD, Inc, the leader in high-end advanced sci-fi based games. It went into active development in 2010. In 2011, we started to build a new custom game engine powered by Havok Vision Engine (previously Trinigy Game Engine) and a variety of other middleware technologies. You can read more about this and the game’s visual style, in our dev blogs (1, 2, 3, 4)

The game has also spawned an RTS companion game, Line Of Defense Tactics, which is currently out on various platforms, including Xbox One.

There are also a series of comic books created in co-operation with DC Comics.


The server which runs the game world is 24-7, uses timers (yikes! how else could you possibly do it I wonder!), is just that: persistent. If you owned or have played the game, you would know all this because even the planet has a 3hr time span (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-the-game-world-divided/) (compared to Earth's 24hrs).  I'm not sure where you think all those screen shots (by us and other users) showing different TOD came from or were generated. And if you had played the game, you'd know all of this because no matter how many times you login to the game, it will always been at a different TOD.

The packs (weapons (http://lodgame.com/asset/portable-weapon-pack/), medical (http://lodgame.com/asset/portable-medical-pack/), supply (http://lodgame.com/asset/portable-supply-pack/)) were put there as a way to give testers the ability to obtain and test various game assets (weapons, attachments, inventory) quickly, including how storage is handled. They were implemented in Build 00.09.03.09 released 02-25-15 (http://lodgame.com/changelog-archives/). Again, if you owned and have played the game, you'd know this - because it's in the docs. And even though they are static (like all such elements in all games), their content storage is not. They change and replenish over time. Again, if you'd played the game, you'd know that because you won't be able to get the same items all the time.

Clearly you don't know anything about "persistence" and are just arguing for the sake of arguing because it burns that Star Citizen has zero persistence; and there's no getting around that.

Quote
Also, I was wrong about that nothing about my character is saved? But then you said it yourself "Nothing about the character is saved"?

Try reading it again. It's in English. If English is not your first language, ask someone to translate it for you.

Quote
To the question "Why would anybody play the game if there is no content to achieve" you answered with "It's in development.". What are you trying to say with that? Since when is "being in development" the reason to play the game?

Another one of your stupid arguments. You posed the question. I gave you an answer. And that answer bears no relevance to what you are not stating. Your commentary was about the game in it's current state. And my answer was specific to it, in that the game is still in development and anyone who wants to play it now, has to play what's there.

Also, the game is PvP. Do you even know what that means? Sure you do; but you're just going around in circles, while trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you don't know what you can "achieve" in a game of this type, then you probably shouldn't be playing it. Ask yourself this: what do you "achieve" in Star Citizen which playing Arena Commander, racing, the PU. Think hard, it might hurt, by go for it.

Quote
The comparison to PS2 is deflected with a BF1 to CoD comparison for what reasons exactly? The latter are vastly different in mapsizes, gamemodes, hell, CoD doesn't even have vehicles, only kill streaks. In Battlefield you are the Killstreak. For this comparison to be legit here you'd have to say that both games do not have (promised) fights on huge persistent ever changing maps on foot, on air and in vehicles, which they both try to achieve. The only difference here is that LoD also wants to feature naval warfare (which does not exist in the game) and the space settings which are the same aircrafts now in an area without the ground.

That's on you. I never brought up any comparisons, you did. And it was just as ludicrous as everything else you're writing. Go back and read what you wrote. And if you don't under why I made that Battlefield vs COD comparison, then you're truly clueless and/or ignorant. And in which case, you're on your own.

Quote
So yes, a comparison is VERY legit as there are design-wise at best with ever changing world events something else that LoD eventually wants to offer while PS2 strictly goes for PvP around capture points and ultimately continental lockdown.

Actually no, it's not. Just because you think, write, or say it, doesn't make it so. And again, if you had actually played LoD, or know enough about it, you'd understand why the comparison (as you've stated them) are completely and utterly ludicrous. Might as well compare Star Citizen to Elite Dangerous; which is even more hilarious.

Anyway, I think this pretty much covers it. If you want to discuss LoD, go to one of the places where is being discussed, and engage people who own and play it. Just be sure to let them know that you don't actually own it, we can tell from the Steam account.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 28, 2016, 08:51:55 AM
I continue my discussion (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4835991&viewfull=1#post4835991) about scene sizes with Ben Parry.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 28, 2016, 12:17:07 PM
I have updated the OP with more links and pertinent info.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 28, 2016, 01:21:03 PM
2.6, which got refactored (see comparison (https://www.diffchecker.com/ucNCNlQy)) by a week in the schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is supposedly going out to Evocati this week!!  :supaburn:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on November 29, 2016, 12:50:54 AM
I think some of the disconnect is with people who are either a) new to the project, or b) casual observers.  They look at the site, they look up Chris's history (but only scratching the surface, oh look, he made Wing Commander, I heard of that), they read some gamer articles, and the natural conclusion, even a logical one, is "OK this game looks good, and it is in development.  4 years is fine, it will probably take longer.)

Can we really expect the casual observer to understand what's really happening at CIG?  What Chris's actual game development history and credentials reveal?  Can we expect the average person to know, just by looking, how badly this studio has been approaching the project?  How much money has been blown by filming millions of dollars of motion capture before the game engine is working?  Failing to even know what anyone will DO in this game before making tons of ships to sell?  The fact that there's no flight model or working anything?  And over 100 other little factoids that reveal that this isn't actually a development studio - it's a cargo cult.

The average person reads articles, sees screenshots, and assumes what 99% of the planet assumes - a developer is working on a game.  They simply look at what actual game developers and publishers are doing, and use that template to extrapolate what they think will happen with CIG.

CIG's business model relies on this mistake occurring indefinitely.  Once they release anything concrete, people will see this project for what it really is.  Then the real fun begins.

This is what makes the whole press coverage of SC extremely damaging.

It is a bit like the US election.  Instead of the media reporting what is going on they are giving SC plenty of free uncritical coverage that generates more sales.     
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 29, 2016, 06:59:00 AM
I think some of the disconnect is with people who are either a) new to the project, or b) casual observers.  They look at the site, they look up Chris's history (but only scratching the surface, oh look, he made Wing Commander, I heard of that), they read some gamer articles, and the natural conclusion, even a logical one, is "OK this game looks good, and it is in development.  4 years is fine, it will probably take longer.)

Can we really expect the casual observer to understand what's really happening at CIG?  What Chris's actual game development history and credentials reveal?  Can we expect the average person to know, just by looking, how badly this studio has been approaching the project?  How much money has been blown by filming millions of dollars of motion capture before the game engine is working?  Failing to even know what anyone will DO in this game before making tons of ships to sell?  The fact that there's no flight model or working anything?  And over 100 other little factoids that reveal that this isn't actually a development studio - it's a cargo cult.

The average person reads articles, sees screenshots, and assumes what 99% of the planet assumes - a developer is working on a game.  They simply look at what actual game developers and publishers are doing, and use that template to extrapolate what they think will happen with CIG.

CIG's business model relies on this mistake occurring indefinitely.  Once they release anything concrete, people will see this project for what it really is.  Then the real fun begins.

This is what makes the whole press coverage of SC extremely damaging.

It is a bit like the US election.  Instead of the media reporting what is going on they are giving SC plenty of free uncritical coverage that generates more sales.   

Right. Thing is that most of the mainstream media have caught up to the fact that they're going to be on the losing end of this. Kinda like all the NMS hype and noise. So they either have stopped covering the game entirely, or only just post top level news verbatim. Hence all those fake news from a reputation management company that are now flooding the Internet.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 29, 2016, 03:53:58 PM
(http://imgur.com/gYKGz3S.jpg)

We're getting word that 2.6 has been released to Evocati and there is now a Reddit thread with confirmation from CIG (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5flh6t/260_and_spectrum_closed_testing_update/).

CIG said that 2.6 (which was due out since June 2016, including Star Marine which was due out in April 2015) would be released in 2016. That was even as they were promoting 3.0.

That would mean dev -> Evocati -> standard -> live. All in 2016. That's what the current schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) says, even with the recent change as per these diffs (https://www.diffchecker.com/ucNCNlQy).

Most of us already knew that 2.6 being released in 2016 was a fantasy dream, which, like 3.0, CIG made up in order to boost backer confidence in order to keep getting funding. I called that one back on Sept 13th (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4757) and again on Nov 2nd (http://www.dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4459).

If Evocati are going to get 2.6, this late in Nov, it stands to reason that 2.6 going live in 2016 isn't happening. Which, depending on how broken it is, would mean a live release sometime in 2017. Which means no SQ42 in Q1/17 either. I don't even.

Seemingly the 3.0 (aka Jesus Patch) is now all but a memory.

(http://imgur.com/qrXPvwS.jpg)

UPDATE: Today's Evocati release doesn't include Star Marine. Yeah.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Joseph on November 30, 2016, 01:12:21 AM
Hey Derek,

What's the source on 2.6 not having Star Marine? If so, that's just pathetic.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on November 30, 2016, 05:17:05 AM
Hey Derek,

What's the source on 2.6 not having Star Marine? If so, that's just pathetic.

i feel sorry for the devs of star citizen due to  roberts and his empty promises...even after working hard the devs get burned everytime.   :rip:

and trust me their funding wont stop as they will pull another fake rabbit out of their hat on next livestream showing that lone mission on sq 42 and the big whales will again loose their mind and will dump more money into cig basket.

realty is their priority is not making the game but the presentations and ship advertisement(hate those).

keep widening the scope of the game and one will always have the excuse not to deliver ever.

They have 137+ million dollars for christs sake they should be deploying all their men power on delivering not just gasping more and more money. there is a limit to milking
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on November 30, 2016, 07:02:44 AM
They have 137+ million dollars for christs sake they should be deploying all their men power on delivering not just gasping more and more money. there is a limit to milking

One could argue that what they should be doing is what they have been doing.

Focussing effort on creating the tools needed to create the game, while working on enough" content" to ensure a steady  - albeit unreliable - revenue stream

The problems here are that Roberts promised to deliver in 2 years what seems likely to need 8, if all the features are added, especially given that he also needed to create the tools to deliver the game, such as the planet generation system and the actual game engine. We all know CIG are working on the netcode and I've been told that is a major aspect of the game that impacts on other systems -not to mention the flight model which on would have assumed would have been locked down some time ago if they hoped to release SQ42 in 2017.

That also makes me wonder if some of the other aspects of the game - cutscenes, motion captures, scripting and so on - might have been done too early, perhaps as a way to provide work for the developers and whether or changes will need to be made to account for developmental progression such as this


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 30, 2016, 07:14:10 AM
Hey Derek,

What's the source on 2.6 not having Star Marine? If so, that's just pathetic.

Myself, and several sources. It wasn't in the update push last night. Apparently some of the files are in fact in the build, but SM itself - as of last night - was NOT enabled (it has a separate menu like Arena Commander)

Official CIG announcement on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5flh6t/260_and_spectrum_closed_testing_update/). No word on SM

Official CIG announcement on RSI website (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7307185/#Comment_7307185). No word on SM

Also this Reddit post was deleted shortly after

(http://i.imgur.com/RxmDaZ3.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 30, 2016, 08:24:05 AM
I have updated the OP.

Also added links to my discussions with Ben Parry one of the rendering programmers on the project. This was sparked by this discussion (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg289#msg289) about the SC world size.

1 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4821808&viewfull=1#post4821808),2 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4821808&viewfull=1#post4821808),3 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4825297&viewfull=1#post4825297),4 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4825525&viewfull=1#post4825525),5 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4835991&viewfull=1#post4835991),6 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4838364&viewfull=1#post4838364),7 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4843554&viewfull=1#post4843554),8 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4845610&viewfull=1#post4845610)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 30, 2016, 10:40:11 AM
For a $137 million project that likes to tout "openness", it's interesting that since 2.6 was released to Evocati yesterday, backers have no clue what's in it (http://"https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7307699/#Comment_7307699"). Particularly it doesn't contain Star Marine; and CIG never even mentioned it.

Meanwhile, some backers are spreading false rumors that it is released.....just because they claim to have seen some file assets in the download. :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: somedude on November 30, 2016, 11:02:33 AM
For a $137 million project that likes to tout "openness", it's interesting that since 2.6 was released to Evocati yesterday, backers have no clue what's in it (http://"https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7307699/#Comment_7307699"). Particularly it doesn't contain Star Marine; and CIG never even mentioned it.

Meanwhile, some backers are spreading false rumors that it is released.....just because they claim to have seen some file assets in the download. :D

Good, let them spread the word. Tears will be harvested when they'll open their eyes ;-)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on November 30, 2016, 03:45:34 PM
Some Shitizens are still spreading false rumors that SM is in the build. It's not.

In fact, now even the /r/StarCitizen/ denizens are actively stifling any information about this. My guess is that by the time word is widespread, they're hoping that CIG would have released it as an update.

Just now posted on my Discord channel:

Quote
the subreddit is cracking down on anything pertaining to whether or not star marine is in the release pretty hard. That post from yesterday was deleted. two threads about it have been removed. their posting guidelines about evocati leaks are the following: "When an Evocati testing session begins, information about it may not be posted until one month after the end of the session in question. Exceptions to the rule include posting the fact that an Evocati session has started, and very basic information regarding the Evocati session theme (e.g. "Balance is being redone." or "3.0 Evocati testing has begun")." I would consider whether or not the main component of the patch is actually in the patch to be pretty basic info but I guess not..

It goes like this: dev (pushed by devs for testing) -> QA (internal QA) -> Evocati (usually the same build as QA) -> wide testing (out of Evocati to larger group, usually subscribers) -> live (wide public release)

Like all builds, the Evocati builds have a unique internal build number that is incremented with each update. The updates during the Evocati test phase, go through the normal test cycle.

And it's all one build. They don't send different builds to different groups.

This release of 2.6 sans Star Marine indicates to me that either i) they want to test other things first before pushing it to Evocati from SQ or ii) it's so badly broken, that it's never coming out this year.

Note that they had slated Dec 8th as the official release. That date pushes up against the holiday sales. So this preemptive move to push 2.6 to Evocati, to me, is yet another carrot stick ploy by CIG to boost confidence during the upcoming sale, then post-sale, announce that SM isn't coming after all, let alone 2.6 going wide. Mark my words.

It's horrible. And this sort of thing is why it is hilarious to me that whales keep funding this project.

And here is Ben Parry saying he can't even talk about whether or not SM is in the 2.6 build (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4846507&viewfull=1#post4846507). And my response (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4847273&viewfull=1#post4847273).

Quote
WRT Star Marine, contents of evocati builds are NDA'd, but also I don't work in CS, QA or production, so why would I know?

LATEST: /r/StarCitizen_Leaks/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/) (<--- run by a known Shitizen, so approach with caution)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on November 30, 2016, 04:48:53 PM
TBH...I don't really care whether or not it is in this build.

What I want to know is if it will be in 2.6 when it is "released".

I would guess that CIG would very much want to include least some form of SM so....unless it is badly broken...SM will be in 2.6 in some form.

Having said that...it makes no sense to not include SM in the current build unless it were badly broken. IF it isn't in the build...that siggests it osn't ready for release and if it were close to being fixed, holding nack the testing so a full version could be tested wouldn't be a bad idea.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on November 30, 2016, 05:49:27 PM
TBH...I don't really care whether or not it is in this build.

What I want to know is if it will be in 2.6 when it is "released".

I would guess that CIG would very much want to include least some form of SM so....unless it is badly broken...SM will be in 2.6 in some form.

Having said that...it makes no sense to not include SM in the current build unless it were badly broken. IF it isn't in the build...that suggests it isn't ready for release and if it were close to being fixed, holding back the testing so a full version could be tested wouldn't be a bad idea.

Well that's the situation CIG has placed themselves in by relying on faith and continued donations to attempt to develop this game.  Star Marine is not in this build because it's badly broken, and they can't afford for people to see it in the condition it's in, or it threatens funding.  Even if it's close to being fixed (which for all I know it could be), they can't hold back the release because they promised the "2.6" regardless of what it contains - to delay it would affect backer faith, and threaten funding.

It's all about keeping up appearances, and with the product they've got in their hands, it's really a no-win situation for CIG.  Delay the patch and threaten faith, or release buggy Star Marine and threaten faith?  Thus we have the solution:  release "2.6" with Star Marine "coming soon."
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on December 01, 2016, 12:39:46 AM
TBH...I don't really care whether or not it is in this build.

What I want to know is if it will be in 2.6 when it is "released".

I would guess that CIG would very much want to include least some form of SM so....unless it is badly broken...SM will be in 2.6 in some form.

Having said that...it makes no sense to not include SM in the current build unless it were badly broken. IF it isn't in the build...that suggests it isn't ready for release and if it were close to being fixed, holding back the testing so a full version could be tested wouldn't be a bad idea.

Well that's the situation CIG has placed themselves in by relying on faith and continued donations to attempt to develop this game.  Star Marine is not in this build because it's badly broken, and they can't afford for people to see it in the condition it's in, or it threatens funding.  Even if it's close to being fixed (which for all I know it could be), they can't hold back the release because they promised the "2.6" regardless of what it contains - to delay it would affect backer faith, and threaten funding.

It's all about keeping up appearances, and with the product they've got in their hands, it's really a no-win situation for CIG.  Delay the patch and threaten faith, or release buggy Star Marine and threaten faith?  Thus we have the solution:  release "2.6" with Star Marine "coming soon."

Maybe....I can't say why SM wouldn't be in the build, if the rumours are true. Not being ready...ie broken...would be a good one but the correct thing to do would be to hold it back completely rather than patch it in later and restart the testing phase.

So...either the rumours are wrong and it is in 2.6, or it is broken and won't be in 2.6 or it is broken and will be patched in later.

I still think CIG really really really want to release 2.6 with SM in some form.  I think not having it in would threaten funding as people are expecting it and it has been shown. I don't think people would accept the explanation it is so broken they can't even showcase the version they showed off.

Of course, there could be problems integrating SM into the main build but again, if that were the case, pushing 2.6 out now for testing instead of letting the evos wait a couple of weeks while the build is fixed would seem to be more of a marketing ploy, to get some news into the stream before the Christmas period starts.

Personally, I think that unless SM is really, really broken that there will be some form of SM in the release version of 2.6. It might be buggy and released with a health warning and missing most features...but i think it likely it will be there.

2.6 with SM has been promised for months. It's the main feature backers have been waiting on. It would be a sign that SM is in real trouble if it were delayed till 3.0.

I don't know if the Evocati build has SM. It apparently has some of the files if nothing else so it seems likely the general release will include it. In what form? I can't say but I think it very likely it will be released.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on December 01, 2016, 01:51:42 AM
CIG is under a lot of pressure bcoz of the production schedule they released. though they said its just estimates but if the backers see that they cant even plan ahead 10 days without any unforeseen problem that can delay them then it is a red spot on cig capabilities thats why they were forced to launch something to evocati and boast that they are sticking to schedule.

i dont know if sm is broken or not but they already have tested flight changes with evocati so i dont know what the evocati is supposed to check in this build .

if releasing this build without sm was cig plan then they would have kept open about it , even made statements like" to adhere to the high fidelity experience we want to offer you we are testing the build in stages" but they didnt and are quiet about it means.... 
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 06:55:00 AM
The hilarious thing is that what they're doing now is precisely what I said yesterday. They're using lies and obfuscation to say that SM is in 2.6, while attempting to buy CIG time.

All of a sudden, saying that "Star Marine isn't in 2.6" is somehow not true because the "files exist in the build".

It's astonishing.

Not only did they construct a GIF (not even a video) of hacked images, but someone actually got solo play working by hacking the build and posting a video of it. There, SM exists! har! har! har!

I am going to say it again. This project is FUBAR. It's only a matter of time now before it all comes apart.

The SM debacle is just another part of the fiasco. The module was already deprecated over a year ago. Now imagine you're a dev working on such a module, which now needs to be brought back because it's the only tangible release for the year, seeing as SC and SQ42 were already a bust. Now you have to make that old code, work with the new code. This is where we are. There is no plausible reason for SM to be brought back, even after croberts himself went on the record saying that it was already in the PU.

So, this WHOLE year, with SC and SQ42 a bust, SM is the only thing they've got that shows any sort of tangible "progress"

Basically, 400 people with over $130+ million couldn't produce a stand-alone fps module using an engine built for an fps. Yeah.

Star Marine solo play using hacked files as per this Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fscye/looks_like_anybody_can_download_the_26_build_and/) which I posted yesterday:


The reality of the 2.6 :

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 07:37:32 AM
Someone made a Star Citizen progress chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1olftkGcAokAh1B_fSic-23_AojZvFvfZvgi2bQ7-GLo/edit#gid=621188584)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Rogerio on December 01, 2016, 08:25:47 AM
Someone made a Star Citizen progress chart (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1olftkGcAokAh1B_fSic-23_AojZvFvfZvgi2bQ7-GLo/edit#gid=621188584)

This is a good resource to check out the promised features!

But there is an inherent problem with the green checked features in which it says they were completed, what I mean is, those features that are tagged as complete, will mean nothing at all when they ultimately fold the project.

So all in all, until they release EVERYTHING as promised, all the child and parent features, complete or incomplete at the moment, will mean nothing.

I feel for the genuine backers who were led to part money based on pie-in-the-sky dreams and lies.

But since the start of your blogs and research into this subject, all the subsequent backers/whales/shitizens who were fleeced out of their money, those I have no pity at all as they got plenty of warning and were told countless times where to look for the big red flag waving at them, at the sound of the loud sirens ringing.

When this FUBARED attempt at a game folds, the amount of salty tears seasoning my popcorn bucket will be glorious! :D  :lesnick: :sandance:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 09:39:07 AM
OK, looks like Goons have figured out the "source" of the GIF video being bandied around as "proof" that SM is enabled in the 2.6 Evocati build of 48hrs ago.

Original GIF video (http://i.imgur.com/Og8f5nz.gifv).

ATV stream video where it was thought to have been captured/exported from (https://youtu.be/3rcWkqliP6A)

NOTE: Someone said that the Black bar at the top (in the GIF) is the ATV logo; though it may be the client score/count or something.

UPDATE: Another Goon has now pointed out that the GIF is actually not from ATV...

(https://i.imgur.com/61LcD4G.png)

But appears to be from the previously leaked (via file hacking of the Evocati build) single-player SM build. Which goes back to what I was saying that the GIF was manipulated to make it look like multiplayer, when it's single player.

(https://i.imgur.com/iOtYEwx.png)

I am going to say it again. This project is FUBAR. It's only a matter of time now before it all comes apart.

The SM debacle is just another part of the fiasco. The module was already deprecated over a year ago. Now imagine you're a dev working on such a module, which now needs to be brought back because it's the only tangible release for the year, seeing as SC and SQ42 were already a bust. Now you have to make that old code, work with the new code. This is where we are. There is no plausible reason for SM to be brought back, even after croberts himself went on the record saying that it was already in the PU.

So, this WHOLE year, with SC and SQ42 a bust, SM is the only thing they've got that shows any sort of tangible "progress"

Basically, 400 people with over $130+ million couldn't produce a stand-alone fps module using an engine built for an fps. Yeah.

Star Marine solo play using hacked files as per this Reddit thread (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fscye/looks_like_anybody_can_download_the_26_build_and/) which I posted yesterday:


The reality of the 2.6 :

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 12:14:58 PM
They're totally tying themselves in knots. It's glorious.

Quote
I disagree. Even if CIG would state that SM is active and playable, Derek and his lackeys will simply claim that it is only active in a new build and still wasn't active on day one.
No amount of proof will be enough for Derek and his lackeys, unless CIG states was in before something is in the hands of the Evocati. And even that wouldn't be enough. CIG would need to remove the NDA completely to make Derek shut up about something not being in. Frankly, I think that is actually what Derek wants. He is saying all this to get the NDA removed. With the NDA removed he probably hopes that the media will again report about the patches, especially on how buggy it is. All Derek does has an ulterior motive to try to cause a refund cascade.

Quote
The video isn't proof that SM is activated "in this build". Its only proof that the assest and gameplay mode are in there. Technically he's right; as long as CIG (or de avocado's) can't confirm that SM is "active and playable" in the current build it's not there. (or is it....... schrodingers star marine?)

https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/5fvr2a/i_know_that_you_guys_are_desperate_to_create_as/dano0m6/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/5fvr2a/i_know_that_you_guys_are_desperate_to_create_as/dano0m6/)

(http://i.imgur.com/trkbAib.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 12:21:07 PM
LOL!!

From a presumably disgruntled caterpillar owner on r/starcitizen_leaks

(http://puu.sh/sAHeg/6305a4ccdc.jpg)

PARKING
SENSOR

NOTE: SM is totally in, but we won't get any screen shots of it; just screen shots of the ship everything is complaining about.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Joseph on December 01, 2016, 12:40:54 PM
The SC community I was once so strongly involved in looks and sounds like a building that is about to come crumbling down. I honestly believe 2017 is going to be the year where something is going to happen. I hope they somehow finish this game. Even if finishing it is a 1/3 of what they promised. If the game falters I don't have a shred of doubt that at least one fanatical person will end their life because of it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: iHover on December 01, 2016, 01:37:20 PM
Even if Star Marine manages to make it into the 2.6 build its just a shadow of what CR told everyone was coming in "weeks" at PAX East back in 2015. I know I was there. But that's when CIG was doing the funding drive for that year. And like usual CR was long on promise and short on delivery.     
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 01, 2016, 01:57:19 PM
800 ms ping. In an internal QA build

(https://forums.somethingawful.com/attachment.php?postid=466979403)

Oh, guess what? Latest AtV, not a peep about whether or not SM is in Evocati's 2.6 release.

In today's AtV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmv6iS5tFeA), Sean Tracy had this to say. And NO indication as to whether or not SM is actually enabled in the current 2.6 Evocati build.

"In addition to testing Star Marine and new ships like the Herald, the 85X and the Caterpillar, they’re also going to be helping test the web version of Spectrum. There’s a lot of kinks to work out still, but so far they’ve already done a lot to help us find and tackle bugs."
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: jeezontorst on December 02, 2016, 07:40:51 AM
The things I find the most surprising about Star Citizen is how there always seems to be blockers or claims of incredible technological achievement for things that I have seen in other games.

I’ve spent 150 hours or so playing Empyrion: Survival Evolved in recent months, it’s still in early access alpha on steam yet already dealt with things SC has been reportedly struggling with for a long time.

Now admittedly it doesn’t have the graphical fidelity that SC is aiming for (although it improves with every patch), but what surprises me is things like:


Empyrion also has planets, space flight, and eventually will have multiple systems to fly around in. Although the transition from space to planetside is not completely seamless; there is a small jump for a second as you re-enter the atmosphere… you can see roughly where you are from space and gauge your re-entry point accordingly.

Plus it has all the base building and craft building you could want.

If an indie team of a handful of devs can pull all these things off in Empyrion, I'm not sure why it’s so remarkable for SC to achieve (or not to) them.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: somedude on December 02, 2016, 11:15:06 AM
SC does nothing that other games havent already done. Its just a goto line for cig defenders.
There is admittably 1 thing that SC 'tries' to do that hasnt been done yet: the scale. To date there is no game (that i know of) that has the scale of what SC wants to be. At least not with the graphical fidelity they're aiming for. (NMS doesnt even count with their cartoon graphics, god i'm sick of cartoon graphics...)

But...SC wont do that either, in fact, there wont be an SC as pitched, ever.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JoeBloggs on December 02, 2016, 03:47:58 PM

I did implement a 128-bit floating-point 3D engine a year ago.


I'm going to call SC bluff on their 64-bit upgrade. Let me explain:


This has to do with data-types for 2^64:

A signed 64-bit int is +/- 2^63,
A 64-bit floating point is 2^52* precision, not 64-bit.

* See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format


Thus, if you cast a 64-bit int higher than 2^53, you get cut-off, or truncation error. Did they not think about that?


You can see floating point errors in game-play - lock on weapons - only to miss, collision errors, oddly sized ships to name a few.


The proposed solution, was to use:
A signed __int128 would cast into long_double, with a guard or warning message if any of the maths goes above/below 2^64.


Yeah, the main reason to use 64-bit, is to get over the 4GB memory-space limit for the textures.


The 64-bit issue, is trivial. Any salted developer would make their Win32 EXEs, Linux ELF and IPA use 64-bit C++.


It's not like the 16-bit DOS era...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JoeBloggs on December 02, 2016, 03:49:55 PM

Have you seen Star Marine or SQ42?


Shitizens,
Close your eyes and don't look at the below video.




Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on December 02, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
The things I find the most surprising about Star Citizen is how there always seems to be blockers or claims of incredible technological achievement for things that I have seen in other games.

In all honesty, what works in one game might not work in another due to the different engines and other systems. I could easily accept that they might be blocked by something that other games have already done, simply on the premise that their program is different. Similarly, I would expect that what might block other programs might be easily dealt with by CIGs system.

Having said that, their claims of incredible technological achievement appear to be mere hype. There is nothing in Star Citizen that strikes me as unique. Ambitious? Yes...but innovative? I don't think they can even claim that the link between SQ42 and SC is innovative as other games have such links, be it sequels using existing save positions or EVE and Dust 514

Star Citizen promises nothing that Elite or NMS or EVE or SWTOR or whatever also does not promise or provide.

That lack of innovation isn't a problem. They might even end up with the BDSSE if they ever get the game released and it lives up to expectations. No - the problem with hyping the game in such a manner is that it raises expectations...expectations that could be very difficult for CIG to meet.

As it is....Star Citizens biggest problem appears to be the usual problem with Chris Roberts' games. Chris Roberts appears to have vastly underestimated the time and resources required to fulfil his vision, and has compounded that error with some bad decisions. Such as the money wasted on Ilfonic because of poor communication/management and other third parties or the choice of CryEngine. As Derek Smart says, the CryEngine licensed for the game might have been suitable for the Kickstarter vision,  but given the amount of time and resources necessary to modify it to make it suitable for his expanded vision, he likely would have been better starting from scratch. He should have said "Now that we have the funds to expand the vision, we have the funding and excuse to design and build a custom engine"

Maybe - as someone suggested - CIG are doing that in parallel with the ship funding we have seen. Maybe this new engine will be 3.0. Maybe this new engine explains the lack of visible progress on many aspects of the game. Maybe. But it seems doubtful.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 02, 2016, 06:48:47 PM
The things I find the most surprising about Star Citizen is how there always seems to be blockers or claims of incredible technological achievement for things that I have seen in other games.

In all honesty, what works in one game might not work in another due to the different engines and other systems. I could easily accept that they might be blocked by something that other games have already done, simply on the premise that their program is different. Similarly, I would expect that what might block other programs might be easily dealt with by CIGs system.

Having said that, their claims of incredible technological achievement appear to be mere hype. There is nothing in Star Citizen that strikes me as unique. Ambitious? Yes...but innovative? I don't think they can even claim that the link between SQ42 and SC is innovative as other games have such links, be it sequels using existing save positions or EVE and Dust 514

I’ve spent 150 hours or so playing Empyrion: Survival Evolved in recent months, it’s still in early access alpha on steam yet already dealt with things SC has been reportedly struggling with for a long time.

Star Citizen promises nothing that Elite or NMS or EVE or SWTOR or whatever also does not promise or provide.

That lack of innovation isn't a problem. They might even end up with the BDSSE if they ever get the game released and it lives up to expectations. No - the problem with hyping the game in such a manner is that it raises expectations...expectations that could be very difficult for CIG to meet.

As it is....Star Citizens biggest problem appears to be the usual problem with Chris Roberts' games. Chris Roberts appears to have vastly underestimated the time and resources required to fulfil his vision, and has compounded that error with some bad decisions. Such as the money wasted on Ilfonic because of poor communication/management and other third parties or the choice of CryEngine. As Derek Smart says, the CryEngine licensed for the game might have been suitable for the Kickstarter vision,  but given the amount of time and resources necessary to modify it to make it suitable for his expanded vision, he likely would have been better starting from scratch. He should have said "Now that we have the funds to expand the vision, we have the funding and excuse to design and build a custom engine"

Maybe - as someone suggested - CIG are doing that in parallel with the ship funding we have seen. Maybe this new engine will be 3.0. Maybe this new engine explains the lack of visible progress on many aspects of the game. Maybe. But it seems doubtful.

^ This was a good post.  :five: :five: :five:

CIG had the chance to innovate with all the money they raised. But all they're going to end up doing now is playing catch-up. And for a game that's coming out in 2017, it no longer even has the graphics edge that it once had. Even with LoD, we're facing the decision of porting to UE4 (http://lodgame.com/news/16-11-01/) and just going all out on the graphics while we're at it because that's what happens when games take too long in development.

They will never get the BDSSE, as that's going to be Elite Dangerous once they get space legs working. And once we go full time on the Universal Combat CE (http://www.3000ad.com/games/universal-combat-lyrius-conflict/) visual upgrade, well then, all bets are off. Even with LoD, the plan is to expand it via DLC once we get the core game out.

There are always going to be high end space combat sims, including the likes of Battlespace Infinity and Dual Universe, which push the limits of what we have now. Star Citizen isn't going to be one of them, as they have already missed the opportunity to really do anything ground-breaking.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 02, 2016, 06:51:40 PM
Ho Lee Cow!!  :laugh:

(http://i.imgur.com/USnwEhA.gif)

FYI, the 2.6 release schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) has been moved - again - to Dec 16th.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: JoeBloggs on December 02, 2016, 09:44:13 PM

Hi Derek,


Don't be surprised on Dec 16th it gets moved to Dec 23rd, then ... Jan 10th 2017.


With this kind of scheduling, you can imagine what kind of ***** quality the production managers have.


If this was an AAA game, someone would get fired, or censured (salary-cut).


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on December 03, 2016, 03:19:31 AM

Hi Derek,


Don't be surprised on Dec 16th it gets moved to Dec 23rd, then ... Jan 10th 2017.


With this kind of scheduling, you can imagine what kind of ***** quality the production managers have.


If this was an AAA game, someone would get fired, or censured (salary-cut).

For a 16th December release, its already been effectively moved to Jan. 17.

How many are going to give it a lot of time over Christmas?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on December 05, 2016, 12:30:41 AM
Have you guys seen the latest newsletter from chris. In it he said "For those keeping track, we got Alpha 2.6 made the release window forecast from the Production Schedule Report."

I was like rolling with laughter after reading this seeing he had the courage to even show his face after such delays and on top of it boasting that they achieved the deadlines. hahahah

After community outcries on delays, CI shows the schedule, then gets delayed, then extend the schedule, then get delayed, then again extend the schedule, then delivers something to the evocati shrouded in darkness, then say see we met the deadline. Thats how humorous chris is...i like him really..lmao
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2016, 06:17:27 AM
Have you guys seen the latest newsletter from chris. In it he said "For those keeping track, we got Alpha 2.6 made the release window forecast from the Production Schedule Report."

I was like rolling with laughter after reading this seeing he had the courage to even show his face after such delays and on top of it boasting that they achieved the deadlines. hahahah

After community outcries on delays, CI shows the schedule, then gets delayed, then extend the schedule, then get delayed, then again extend the schedule, then delivers something to the evocati shrouded in darkness, then say see we met the deadline. Thats how humorous chris is...i like him really..lmao

Yeah, it's pathetic. The last one he did was on 11/19, going into the anniversary sales. So he's prepping for the upcoming holiday sales; even though 2.6 isn't even released yet; and probably won't be at that point. It's a pathetic on-going cash grab. But wait; things are happening.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: DDM_Reaper20 on December 05, 2016, 06:33:52 AM
It gets even "better." Caught a blurb about passenger missions. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14804-Design-Civilian-Passenger-Transport

The "tasks" detailed there are about as fascinating as watching somebody clip their toenails. The reason behind this spiel is . . . (drum roll, please) . . . MONEY. Yup. They are going to do a "concept sale" on dedicated passenger vessels.

As far as I understand the concept (pun intended), this may not even mean that the ship(s) make it into the game proper.

Frankly, I seriously doubt that this game will be released in 2017. How could that be the case?

As to SM (sounds more like sado-maso to me . . . game-wise, that is . . .) -- I get why so many citizens are totally happy to see that. It means SOME progress. A tiny, tiny, TINY smidgen of progress.

'course, given that this is ONE aspect ofa much larger game, which does not even exist yet in its entirety, such delight is totally misplaced.

Well, at least there is a certain entertainment value to this.

Mind you, I'd love to see Star Citizen come out as a game that could compete with ED. I just do not see it happening, the  main reason being that CR insists on feature creep all the time. Even I, largely ignorant of programming, know that this means asking for trouble.

Well, here's to another round of patting their own backs at CIG for having milked people.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2016, 01:20:53 PM
The "tasks" detailed there are about as fascinating as watching somebody clip their toenails.

LOL!! I was howling when I read that. But it's true. Funny thing is that, going by the "golf swing" radar, these clowns really think if/when the MVP rolls out, that they're going to be getting any of this crap that's been written and theory-crafted. It's going to be amazing watching all their dreams shatter. It's not like they weren't warned.  :argh:

It's never coming out. But until the whole thing collapses, all we can do is just enjoy the ride.

btw, Shitizens still can't reconcile the fact that I was right about Star Marine not being in the original 11-30 Evocati release.  :smuggo:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2016, 01:43:36 PM
So those playing the 2.6 build behind an NDA noticed that a CIG artist label a dial "honesty" in a new ship. It's @ 2:32 mark (https://youtu.be/IC_XUn_BF7k?t=152)

(http://i.imgur.com/mwo9Ih6.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 05, 2016, 04:52:04 PM
I have to laugh at people still arguing about whether or not SM was enabled in the 2.6 build.

Now one Shillizen is saying...

Quote
SM was in there and was playable, but not to every evocati tester. You don't have it nor have access to it, so you wouldn't know. I don't blame you otherwise.

It's FALSE. And it is an attempt to say that if someone didn't have access to SM, that's because he wasn't part of that test set.

There is only ONE Evocati build. All other builds are standard builds.

DEV (pushed by devs for testing) -> QA (internal QA) -> EVOCATI (usually the same build as QA) -> WIDE PU TEST (out of Evocati to larger group, usually subscribers) -> LIVE (public release)

Anyone with access to Star Marine when 2.6 was first released on 11-30, did NOT have access to SM other than via hacking the files (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fscye/looks_like_anybody_can_download_the_26_build_and/) and ending up in solo play

Think about this for a moment and you will see what's going on.


Simple. The files where. But it wasn't an official release of Star Marine. They enabled it later via a "Star Marine only" patch update due to all the noise that's been going on about it. Which is precisely what I said they would do. They did that about 48hrs later.

I can't even believe that people are arguing about this still. This is what I stated (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg443#msg443) back then, and I was 100% right.

Quote
Some Shitizens are still spreading false rumors that SM is in the build. It's not.

In fact, now even the /r/StarCitizen/ denizens are actively stifling any information about this. My guess is that by the time word is widespread, they're hoping that CIG would have released it as an update.

Just now posted on my Discord channel:

Quote
the subreddit is cracking down on anything pertaining to whether or not star marine is in the release pretty hard. That post from yesterday was deleted. two threads about it have been removed. their posting guidelines about evocati leaks are the following: "When an Evocati testing session begins, information about it may not be posted until one month after the end of the session in question. Exceptions to the rule include posting the fact that an Evocati session has started, and very basic information regarding the Evocati session theme (e.g. "Balance is being redone." or "3.0 Evocati testing has begun")." I would consider whether or not the main component of the patch is actually in the patch to be pretty basic info but I guess not..

It goes like this: dev (pushed by devs for testing) -> QA (internal QA) -> Evocati (usually the same build as QA) -> wide testing (out of Evocati to larger group, usually subscribers) -> live (wide public release)

Like all builds, the Evocati builds have a unique internal build number that is incremented with each update. The updates during the Evocati test phase, go through the normal test cycle.

And it's all one build. They don't send different builds to different groups.

This release of 2.6 sans Star Marine indicates to me that either i) they want to test other things first before pushing it to Evocati from SQ or ii) it's so badly broken, that it's never coming out this year.

Note that they had slated Dec 8th as the official release. That date pushes up against the holiday sales. So this preemptive move to push 2.6 to Evocati, to me, is yet another carrot stick ploy by CIG to boost confidence during the upcoming sale, then post-sale, announce that SM isn't coming after all, let alone 2.6 going wide. Mark my words.

It's horrible. And this sort of thing is why it is hilarious to me that whales keep funding this project.

And here is Ben Parry saying he can't even talk about whether or not SM is in the 2.6 build (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4846507&viewfull=1#post4846507). And my response (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4847273&viewfull=1#post4847273).

Quote
WRT Star Marine, contents of evocati builds are NDA'd, but also I don't work in CS, QA or production, so why would I know?

LATEST: /r/StarCitizen_Leaks/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/5fnd8p/evocati_leaks_updated_regularly/) (<--- run by a known Shitizen, so approach with caution)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 11, 2016, 05:52:33 AM
For those not following this closely, they have already missed the PU release of 2.6. Also, here's a handy diff (https://www.diffchecker.com/UNYH7Zdq) (courtesy of Goons) showing how they have been changing the wording on the schedule page (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 16, 2016, 08:53:06 AM
As of Dec 16th, with 2.6 still MIA and 3.0 still a pipe dream, these are the major releases this year since 2.0

v2.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15106-Star-Citizen-Alpha-20-Available) (patch notes (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15109-Star-Citizen-Alpha-200)), Dec 12, 2015
v2.1.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15137-Star-Citizen-Alpha-210), Jan 15, 2016
v2.2.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15211-Star-Citizen-Alpha-220), March 4, 2016
v2.3.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15268-Star-Citizen-Alpha-230), March 26, 2016
v2.4.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15377-Star-Citizen-Alpha-240), June 9, 2016
v2.5.0 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/15490-Star-Citizen-Alpha-250), Aug 25, 2016

And during this period, these are ALL the Star Marine updates. Yet, here we are, over a year later, and they still can't get it working.

AUGUST 22ND 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14911-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
AUGUST 29TH 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14925-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
SEPTEMBER 19TH 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14961-Star-Marine-Status-Update)
OCTOBER 23RD 2015 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15024-Development-Update)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 19, 2016, 10:54:23 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0DL490WgAArEf6.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 19, 2016, 10:54:45 AM
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 19, 2016, 11:27:41 AM
The now removed livestream

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 20, 2016, 09:32:56 AM
Star Marine in 2.6. Somehow CIG managed to fail at building an FPS component with an engine built for FPS games. Crashes, lags, disconnects etc.


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 20, 2016, 09:44:20 AM
Its time for the 25 million stretch goal: International server during alpha (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5jds7b/its_time_for_the_25_million_stretch_goal/)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on December 20, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
Star Marine in 2.6. Somehow CIG managed to fail at building an FPS component with an engine built for FPS games. Crashes, lags, disconnects etc.

And is a complete different experience than the PU FPS ... sure .. we know why ... and we know how Devs love to do redundant work on 2 different modules that are not compatible with each other and how this plays out :)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on December 21, 2016, 05:19:29 AM
The SM Netcode probs will just be discounted by the fans. 
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 21, 2016, 04:15:41 PM
In keeping with the tradition of ripping off other game art, someone found that Star Marine is a Master Chief ripoff (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5jmm4l/a_bit_of_halo_bled_through_on_this_one/)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PGuJjUQAAWa0f.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PGvO1UcAAu_pG.jpg:large)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PGwO9UcAApwX5.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 21, 2016, 04:32:04 PM
(http://imgur.com/G12a8DC.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 21, 2016, 04:41:53 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PJioTXAAEN9J-.jpg)

Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/5jjxcg/derek_smart_on_twitter_i_heard_that/dbgzquk/)...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PNJ_lXgAAR_Gd.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on December 22, 2016, 12:01:42 AM
In keeping with the tradition of ripping off other game art, someone found that Star Marine is a Master Chief ripoff (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5jmm4l/a_bit_of_halo_bled_through_on_this_one/)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PGuJjUQAAWa0f.jpg)
Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/DerekSmart/comments/5jjxcg/derek_smart_on_twitter_i_heard_that/dbgzquk/)...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0PNJ_lXgAAR_Gd.jpg)

hey derek i am new to this scene could u tell me who this guy beer4god is ? his history??

btw it is very shameful act on cig part to have copied the legendary master chief, i know they had to copy from somewhere :laugh: but copying from the most known character in gaming industry.. :wtchris:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 22, 2016, 07:22:02 AM
hey derek i am new to this scene could u tell me who this guy beer4god is ? his history??

(http://i.imgur.com/0Djewcj.jpg)

Beer4theBeerGod (http://twitter.com/beer4thebeergod/) is a Goon and one of the early backers and staunch supporter of the project. He has been seeking accountability from them since the early days. Then after he apparently became a thorn in their collective sides, without any justification, they banned his RSI forum account (http://i.imgur.com/ou1E5u0.png). Then accused him of corporate espionage (http://i.imgur.com/HYQ7cAv.jpg) after I gave him the name of a ship that they were going to put on sale without disclosing it to the backers  :laugh:

You can read the entire exchange (http://imgur.com/a/BIlWu) with Sandi Gardiner Roberts (http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/08/woman-in-gaming-so-what/) and get a good laugh. That's the same exchange in which she told him that she was the most qualified person at the company. Seriously.

He was still holding on, hoping that they would - by some miracle - turn the project around. At this point, seeing as it's clear that's never going to happen, a few days ago he put in for a refund (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/811563366078627844) for what was left (a little over $500) of his account. He had in fact liquidated (to the tune of about $1,000) some of his game assets in the past months.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on December 22, 2016, 07:40:04 AM
Its time for the 25 million stretch goal: International server during alpha (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5jds7b/its_time_for_the_25_million_stretch_goal/)

The 'Galactapedia' is surprisingly absent too;

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/51whkm/whats_the_status_of_the_galactapedia/
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13812-Letter-From-The-Chairman-42-Million

Whilst not as crucial as international servers for alpha testing, you'd think a mere website feature (especially one with a $42,000,000 price tag) would be simple enough for CIG to implement.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 22, 2016, 07:46:51 AM
Yeah, that's another one. A lot of things are missing, will never get done etc.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 22, 2016, 10:03:04 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/evD9oy4.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mackjazno on December 23, 2016, 10:40:42 PM
More than four years into development Star Citizen changes game engine

http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/23/14062698/star-citizen-amazon-game-engine

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/12/24/star-citizen-has-changed-game-engines

And discuss...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on December 24, 2016, 01:17:19 AM
More than four years into development Star Citizen changes game engine

http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/23/14062698/star-citizen-amazon-game-engine

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/12/24/star-citizen-has-changed-game-engines

And discuss...

Well...they didn't want to upgrade to CE5 because it was too much work and the engines were too different following their reworking...
But effectively did it anyway, which suggests their attempts to fix the NetCode in their CE3 engine were less than successful.

Other than that....I'd be interested to know what this mean for the game.

Is the NetCode now "fixed"...or are CIG limited in how the an modify it
Are CIG now stuck with Amazon?
What are the new instance limits? Will we get the 200 players per instance CIG were wanting or is that still some time away?
CIG had reportedly stopping using CE patches because the code base had diverged so much...how does that work for Lumberyard? When they say all the changes made have been moved to Lumberyard, does that mean it's been tested and intergrated smoothly as well or does it mean we are in for a year of "testing" instead of development and progress?
When they say they have moved to Lumberyard...could that mean they may simply have licensed the Netcode and effectively merged it into StarEngine rather than vice versa? That is, kept as much of their own engine intact and made as few other changes as possible in order to fix the netcode?
Does Lumberyard offer CIG any other advantages?

More importantly....does this mean work on the Engine has "finished"? Can we expect quicker progress? Can we expect SOME progress?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on December 24, 2016, 06:33:00 AM
Well...they didn't want to upgrade to CE5 because it was too much work and the engines were too different following their reworking...
But effectively did it anyway, which suggests their attempts to fix the NetCode in their CE3 engine were less than successful.

Other than that....I'd be interested to know what this mean for the game.

Is the NetCode now "fixed"...or are CIG limited in how the an modify it
Are CIG now stuck with Amazon?
What are the new instance limits? Will we get the 200 players per instance CIG were wanting or is that still some time away?
CIG had reportedly stopping using CE patches because the code base had diverged so much...how does that work for Lumberyard? When they say all the changes made have been moved to Lumberyard, does that mean it's been tested and intergrated smoothly as well or does it mean we are in for a year of "testing" instead of development and progress?
When they say they have moved to Lumberyard...could that mean they may simply have licensed the Netcode and effectively merged it into StarEngine rather than vice versa? That is, kept as much of their own engine intact and made as few other changes as possible in order to fix the netcode?
Does Lumberyard offer CIG any other advantages?

More importantly....does this mean work on the Engine has "finished"? Can we expect quicker progress? Can we expect SOME progress?

Lumberyard might be based on CryEngine, but it's Amazon's adjustments in it, not CIG's.  Every custom modification - years of work - from both CIG and Crytek employees are now reset to zero.

The netcode was never "broken" per se - it's that the built-in CryEngine netcode could not support what CIG was trying to do - it's not an MMO engine.  Lumberyard is also not an MMO engine.  So the netcode work also starts over.

There's no "merging" either - the changes to create "StarEngine" were too deep.  CIG's developers have gone on the record, in attempting to validate delays and lack of progress, saying that they've changed over 50% of the CryEngine code base.  Now those same people are claiming that it's a simple process to merge their changes into Lumberyard because it's so "similar."

Yeah, similar except for the 50% they've been crowing about for years.  They basically need to change 50% of the Lumberyard code now ("LumberStar?") and how long that will take is anyone's guess.  Not to mention that the results of their work were embarrassingly bad, and there's no guarantee that Lumberyard will do any better.  On top of that, there's no guarantee that Amazon will allow them to host a deeply modified version of Lumberyard on their servers without understanding the impact their changes will make to their infrastructure from a security and performance perspective.

If I was forced at gunpoint to contrive a positive spin on this, I would say that CIG's familiarity with their own changes to CryEngine over the years means that the migration to Lumberyard would take less time than it would to migrate to an entirely new engine, such as Unreal.  That's what I'd say at gunpoint.

Not at gunpoint, I'd say LOL.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Beexoffel on December 24, 2016, 07:05:02 AM
Lumbering around the yard, how fitting.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Kyrt on December 24, 2016, 10:04:32 AM
Lumberyard might be based on CryEngine, but it's Amazon's adjustments in it, not CIG's.  Every custom modification - years of work - from both CIG and Crytek employees are now reset to zero.

As I understand it.

Quote
The netcode was never "broken" per se - it's that the built-in CryEngine netcode could not support what CIG was trying to do - it's not an MMO engine.  Lumberyard is also not an MMO engine.  So the netcode work also starts over.

I thought Lumberyard had an upgraded netcode attached?

But maybe I am wrong.

As it is...If I understand what Lumberyard is, I would say the advantages here are that it provides CIG with a ready made global server architecture, and the licensing (if not support) fees are reasonable. As in, non existent. That might be a decent saving for them depending on their license terms from CryTek.

As for how simple "merging" the code bases are, I don't have a clue. OTOH - maybe it is as simple as simply dropping Amazons netcode into StarEngine, on the assumption Amazon would be OK with that.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Mehlan on December 24, 2016, 11:12:23 AM
"Lumberyard might be based on CryEngine, but it's Amazon's adjustments in it, not CIG's.  Every custom modification - years of work - from both CIG and Crytek employees are now reset to zero."


 Actually, according to Chris, it's already done...    Lol, of course the reality of the situation is another matter.


p.s....

 "If you have been checking out our schedule updates you would know that we originally had hoped to release 2.6 at the beginning of December, not Friday the 23rd!"

    Wait a minute Chris, according to gamescon you were 'hoping' to have both 2.6 AND 3.0 out before the end of the year...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on December 27, 2016, 06:03:16 AM
where did all the folks go??/ no new post on the site since 24th
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on December 27, 2016, 02:35:40 PM

 Actually, according to Chris, it's already done...    Lol, of course the reality of the situation is another matter.

   Wait a minute Chris, according to gamescon you were 'hoping' to have both 2.6 AND 3.0 out before the end of the year...

Lol.

According to me and many others Chris is a liar.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on December 27, 2016, 06:31:40 PM
More than four years into development Star Citizen changes game engine

http://www.polygon.com/2016/12/23/14062698/star-citizen-amazon-game-engine

http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/12/24/star-citizen-has-changed-game-engines

And discuss...
Taken from
https://www.cryengine.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=126&t=133275&start=105

Quote
For those that may be interested, here's a longer synopsis I sent to a colleague that asked about Lumberyard:

It's 99.9% full CryEngine source at this point. The main differences are:

1) They reorganized a lot of the "features" to break them down into "Gems", which makes the base messier to work with and currently adds additional complexity that really isn't needed - like breaking the "Lightning Arc" entity out as an individual gem, for example, which you can pick during project creation.
2) The networking layer is completely replaced. The new one has less latency, but also increases bandwidth (doesn't use the network compression system), and still transfers all data to all clients, so it will not scale.
3) Scaleform/Flash is removed - they have their own simplistic UI system currently - very basic stuff.
4) Steam integration has been removed (see paragraph below)
5) Crytek's lobby system is removed
6) Some experimental features like Segmented Worlds have been completely removed
7) I like the way they are trying to make the initial development more project focused - create a project, pick the gems you want to use, etc., but right now it's a little confusing and they need to clean it up - feels very "hacked" in currently
8) Not open source - you can't distribute any source code modification you make - DLLs should be fine from what I read in the EULA
9) All current CE limitations are still in place - memory restrictions, map size restrictions, AI system, and so forth.
10) You get full source for everything - Launchers, editor (Sandbox), and shaders included.

The biggest downside is anything that requires a network server is locked into the AWS services. The exception is if you host the servers yourself, in your own datacenter, then that's fine, but very few people/companies will be willing to do that. Any Web APIs or services that would compete with an AWS service is not allowed. This means that you can't use Steam's ladderboards, achievements, messaging, storage, or anything like that because AWS has a competing service in place - it's why Steam integration appears to have been removed. You can sell the game on Steam, just not integrate with any back-end Steam services. So, for a single-player game you still need to use AWS' services for those if you want them.

If any of the above is incorrect, I apologize, and please correct me.

Lumberyard is based on Cry3.8 but what I read from CIG is that they've butchered the sourcecode and picked the gems out of it to include it in their Frankenengine.
This is a little in conflict with the Lumberyard TOS that forbids to butcher their sourcecode for an own engine, Amazon didn't pay $50mil and countless manhours for some wannabe developer to implement it in their own engine.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on December 27, 2016, 07:09:49 PM
oh and ...
GCE vs AWS in 2016: Why you shouldn’t use Amazon
https://thehftguy.com/2016/06/15/gce-vs-aws-in-2016-why-you-should-never-use-amazon/
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on December 28, 2016, 06:09:43 AM
My latest in-depth blog, Irreconcilable Differences (http://dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/), about Star Citizen's recent switch to Amazon's Lumberyard engine is live. Enjoy.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 06, 2017, 07:50:05 AM
Someone did an analysis of the Star Citizen 2.6 netcode. It's not pretty.


Ho Lee Crap!

(http://i.imgur.com/QEoNT7T.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 06, 2017, 06:14:12 PM
So the first newsletter of the year is up. So 2017 is all about SQ42 and 3.0. Again. And no mention of 4.0 (which was coming end of 2017) anymore.

(http://i.imgur.com/eYrdRkN.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 06, 2017, 06:24:19 PM
LOL!! This is hilarious.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5meowg/when_will_the_issue_be_fixed_according_to/

(http://i.imgur.com/fPDqSyr.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on January 06, 2017, 11:13:44 PM
this is the height of incompetency, CIG still havent updated the schedule page. what a bummer i think they wont update the page about 3.0 but will buy some days off by showing schedule for 2.6.1 minor patch. That way backers will think ok something is happening .. :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 07, 2017, 05:46:44 AM
this is the height of incompetency, CIG still havent updated the schedule page. what a bummer i think they wont update the page about 3.0 but will buy some days off by showing schedule for 2.6.1 minor patch. That way backers will think ok something is happening .. :laugh:

Well, take a look at the newsletter that went out yesterday. Same crap as before. Now they're saying 3.0 and SQ42 in 2017. I can't wait to see the schedule; if they ever update it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 07, 2017, 06:21:15 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/vbIMAPW.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on January 08, 2017, 11:30:26 AM
this is the height of incompetency, CIG still havent updated the schedule page. what a bummer i think they wont update the page about 3.0 but will buy some days off by showing schedule for 2.6.1 minor patch. That way backers will think ok something is happening .. :laugh:
And their founding counter peaks everytime they announce dreams, do a schedule for a minor patch and .... post a rendered image of a planet ... Dreams are happening here Dreams!
And if all this breaks apart Chris will have his 4 mocap studios, Cars and nice Furniture because he decoupled them from CIG.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 10, 2017, 12:42:31 PM
I think by now everyone knows that it's bullshit and being padded. Not even Shitizens believe that it's accurate.

As I said on Twitter earlier today (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/818842260884385792), I can't wait to see how CIG/RSI explain to backers why SQ42 is part of Star Citizen via a menu (like AC and Star Marine). tbh, it's a good idea cuz SQ42 was always standalone anyway. they just have to disable network parts & run it like the single-player hangar. Or they could retain networking, host it like AC/SM and bring back co-op play. that would require refactoring the missions though.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, despite SQ42 being single-player and having been split from SC as a separate game (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15189-Package-Split-Information), some are acting as if this would be normal if true. Mind blown.

In fact, they're thinking that just because it's just a menu option, that's it's the same thing. This despite the fact that it looks like it's going to be "just another game mode" like AC and SM.

Anyway, they've also now started scaling back on stuff that subs were supposed to be paying for. Now RTV has also been refactored. Say welcome to Happy Hour (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/citizens/15667-This-Week-In-Star-Citizen)! I kid you not.

Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5n5h06/is_everyone_else_cool_with_losing_the_two_qa/).

(http://i.imgur.com/v4HuRXL.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 10, 2017, 05:21:28 PM
And the gaming press are silent on these things and continue to prove SC with free coverage of how much $$$ they have conned.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on January 11, 2017, 01:40:30 AM

Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5n5h06/is_everyone_else_cool_with_losing_the_two_qa/).


Hey DS, according to the thread on reddit. they are saying ATV and 10 for the chairman are dead!! is it true

and if its true then its an onset of something bad as CR has started to officially avoid showing his face and make false statements in front of camera to reduce his legal liabilities.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 11, 2017, 04:10:16 PM
104TC has been dead for months now. And yes, ATV is dead now too; and has been replaced with a Happy Hour.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 11, 2017, 11:00:22 PM

Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5n5h06/is_everyone_else_cool_with_losing_the_two_qa/).


Hey DS, according to the thread on reddit. they are saying ATV and 10 for the chairman are dead!! is it true

and if its true then its an onset of something bad as CR has started to officially avoid showing his face and make false statements in front of camera to reduce his legal liabilities.

It is no surprise that CR has realised (or been made to realise) that it isn't a good idea to face the backers on a regular basis (even if its highly staged).   There is only so much one can say with so little progress and now  he can be wheeled out to spread bullshit damage reduction when the efforts of his minions to guild the lily come up wanting.

The less he is on, the less likely he is to put his foot in it.

If he also has people writing his spiels for him (as was apparently the case on xmas day),  then the circus can continue for a little longer.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 12, 2017, 03:07:23 PM
Those clowns over at CIG/RSI still can't build a game for $140m; but apparently they have an alien language now

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 12, 2017, 04:15:19 PM
English to Vanduul:

DEREK SMART WAS RIGHT. GET A REFUND

(http://imgur.com/SY3oBFI.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 13, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Those clowns over at CIG/RSI still can't build a game for $140m; but apparently they have an alien language now


This is great material for comedians. 13.35 mins in

The actor really looks like he is enjoying his work too !
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on January 13, 2017, 08:15:47 PM
He seems to be a good actor and good actors are getting paid well :)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 20, 2017, 05:53:12 PM
So they released the new schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report). 2.6.1 is mid-Feb.

And the newsletter talks of 2.6.2. As for 3.0 (which was totally coming on or before Dec 19th, 2016), the newsletter says they will have more specifics as soon as they are set. Remember back when I said it didn't even exist? :supaburn:

(http://i.imgur.com/gDcCwuq.png)

Items removed from the 12/23/16 2.6 release

(http://i.imgur.com/bFP0mMd.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 20, 2017, 09:01:19 PM
So they released the new schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report). 2.6.1 is mid-Feb.

And the newsletter talks of 2.6.2. As for 3.0 (which was totally coming on or before Dec 19th, 2016), the newsletter says they will have more specifics as soon as they are set. Remember back when I said it didn't even exist? :supaburn:

(http://i.imgur.com/gDcCwuq.png)

When I have done Project Management in the past, I could print a GANT chart with all the deliverables  on in minutes.

As you say Derek,  if it doesn't exist in the first place then this is the sort of bullshit newsletter you'd expect CR to produce.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on January 20, 2017, 10:44:12 PM
So they released the new schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report). 2.6.1 is mid-Feb.

And the newsletter talks of 2.6.2. As for 3.0 (which was totally coming on or before Dec 19th, 2016), the newsletter says they will have more specifics as soon as they are set. Remember back when I said it didn't even exist? :supaburn:

(http://i.imgur.com/gDcCwuq.png)

Precisely they can show a GNATT chart(yes stan this is what it spells like) and whatever delay 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 will have can be added to 3.0 timeline without hassle . but if they dont have any clue then its useless in first place.

They can give an estimation ( because this is what they can give.. :laugh:) like they have given for 2.6.1, they can say it will take them by their estimates 50 days for 2.6.2 and another 90 days for 3.0. and this way we will have an idea what we are looking for. suppose 2.6.1 gets delayed by 10 days so we can add 10 days to the timeline of 2.6.2 and 3.0.

It can be made this simple but one has to be competent to give such deadlines, people who talk fluff to sway backers wont do such professional things.. :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 21, 2017, 09:57:53 AM
Now we have the schedule - Looks like 3.0 by the end of March is highly unlikely. (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5p7j5s/now_we_have_the_schedule_looks_like_30_by_the_end/)

The December estimation by CR for the launch of 3.0 is looking more and more like an outright lie rather than just a simple misjudgment. (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5p8yip/the_december_estimation_by_cr_for_the_launch_of/)

It's not like they weren't warned or anything.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 22, 2017, 08:29:47 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/lsB463i.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 22, 2017, 08:33:55 AM
After so much arguing with Ben Parry over the fact that CryEngine/StarEngine/Lumberyard all use the concept of "levels" - and him denying it and trying to hand wave the concept, here is Sean Tracy - again - in a recent stream saying that they are in fact levels (https://youtu.be/DK2ZBCeKKuQ?t=2318). Oh and "Megamap" isn't really "mega". So there's that.

Listen from 39:11 again because, to me, he clearly lumped StarEngine in that "level". The only difference being that their "MegaMap" concept doesn't do any pre-loading like a traditional level does. Instead, it streams in what's needed around the player. So, it is still a level - albeit a container. - But while a standard level includes everything in it and requires preloading, their MegaMap doesn't preload anything. Instead it is "demand loaded" (he calls it streaming, which is still a fancy word for loading).

You know the hilarious part? This is what I did in all my Battlecruiser/Universal Combat games. In fact, I described it in detail right here (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg289#msg289). My tech doesn't have the concept of "levels", but an empty object/blob/scene is still a level, except that there's nothing in it but placeholders which determine what gets loaded/streamed when that area is "in scope".

So they basically - again - took an old concept, gave it fancy name, while confusing the entire premise. Which is why Ben Parry swears up and down that they're not "levels" per se.

They did the same shit with 64-Bit positioning, visual stabilization etc

The point is that, time and time again, they have obfuscated various technical terms and usage in a bid to mislead and lie. this is part of the problem when you go digging, only to find out that they're not doing anything new or revolutionary. they try to give off that illusion in order to keep the scam going, while justify having blown over $140m of backer money on cookie cutter bullshit. they did the same shit over the 64-Bit positioning nonsense, until I called them out on it and people started asking questions.

They don't have ANY groundbreaking tech - at all.

And they just did the same shit by lying about the LumberYard switch - though they hadn't actually done it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on January 22, 2017, 01:53:15 PM
After so much arguing with Ben Parry over the fact that CryEngine/StarEngine/Lumberyard all use the concept of "levels" - and him denying it and trying to hand wave the concept, here is Sean Tracy - again - in a recent stream saying that they are in fact levels (https://youtu.be/DK2ZBCeKKuQ?t=2318). Oh and "Megamap" isn't really "mega". So there's that.

Listen from 39:11 again because, to me, he clearly lumped StarEngine in that "level". The only difference being that their "MegaMap" concept doesn't do any pre-loading like a traditional level does. Instead, it streams in what's needed around the player. So, it is still a level - albeit a container. - But while a standard level includes everything in it and requires preloading, their MegaMap doesn't preload anything. Instead it is "demand loaded" (he calls it streaming, which is still a fancy word for loading).

You know the hilarious part? This is what I did in all my Battlecruiser/Universal Combat games. In fact, I described it in detail right here (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg289#msg289). My tech doesn't have the concept of "levels", but an empty object/blob/scene is still a level, except that there's nothing in it but placeholders which determine what gets loaded/streamed when that area is "in scope".

So they basically - again - took an old concept, gave it fancy name, while confusing the entire premise. Which is why Ben Parry swears up and down that they're not "levels" per se.

They did the same shit with 64-Bit positioning, visual stabilization etc

The point is that, time and time again, they have obfuscated various technical terms and usage in a bid to mislead and lie. this is part of the problem when you go digging, only to find out that they're not doing anything new or revolutionary. they try to give off that illusion in order to keep the scam going, while justify having blown over $140m of backer money on cookie cutter bullshit. they did the same shit over the 64-Bit positioning nonsense, until I called them out on it and people started asking questions.

They don't have ANY groundbreaking tech - at all.

And they just did the same shit by lying about the LumberYard switch - though they hadn't actually done it.

I'm questionning here the Ben Parry's skills; I mean either he's got absolute shit skills hence why he works at CIG (and would that mean a significant part of the non-execs devs at CIG are unskilled(?), as we know the lead devs are noobs anyway (hey Forrest) or have quit ), or he's been kept in the dark and fed with the Cult mentality all along -sounds like it too; OR he's been part of Croberts scam head crew and know very much he's been coning people. I'm not so much for the later. I guess the first 2 options are viable though.
 What's your thoughts about?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 22, 2017, 05:01:07 PM
I'm questionning here the Ben Parry's skills; I mean either he's got absolute shit skills hence why he works at CIG (and would that mean a significant part of the non-execs devs at CIG are unskilled(?), as we know the lead devs are noobs anyway (hey Forrest) or have quit ), or he's been kept in the dark and fed with the Cult mentality all along -sounds like it too; OR he's been part of Croberts scam head crew and know very much he's been coning people. I'm not so much for the later. I guess the first 2 options are viable though.
 What's your thoughts about?

Neither. He's just a low level programmer peon who knows nothing about anything outside his bubble. Plus he hates that I keep engaging and running circles around him.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 22, 2017, 07:50:27 PM
I'm questionning here the Ben Parry's skills; I mean either he's got absolute shit skills hence why he works at CIG (and would that mean a significant part of the non-execs devs at CIG are unskilled(?), as we know the lead devs are noobs anyway (hey Forrest) or have quit ), or he's been kept in the dark and fed with the Cult mentality all along -sounds like it too; OR he's been part of Croberts scam head crew and know very much he's been coning people. I'm not so much for the later. I guess the first 2 options are viable though.
 What's your thoughts about?

Neither. He's just a low level programmer peon who knows nothing about anything outside his bubble. Plus he hates that I keep engaging and running circles around him.

What does his Resume look like ?

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 23, 2017, 10:41:56 AM
I'm questionning here the Ben Parry's skills; I mean either he's got absolute shit skills hence why he works at CIG (and would that mean a significant part of the non-execs devs at CIG are unskilled(?), as we know the lead devs are noobs anyway (hey Forrest) or have quit ), or he's been kept in the dark and fed with the Cult mentality all along -sounds like it too; OR he's been part of Croberts scam head crew and know very much he's been coning people. I'm not so much for the later. I guess the first 2 options are viable though.
 What's your thoughts about?

Neither. He's just a low level programmer peon who knows nothing about anything outside his bubble. Plus he hates that I keep engaging and running circles around him.

What does his Resume look like ?

Ben Parry on LinkedIn (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/klumaster)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 26, 2017, 12:06:22 PM
oh-oh. over at CIG/F42, a dozen devs cried out in fear

http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846 (http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846)

remember back when I wrote that their use of Lumberyard in 2.6 was restricted to it's implementation of AWS/S3, hence the need to display the logo?

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html)

section:  Updated AWS SDK

listing: Amazon S3

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3HXStaWIAAGa6I.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 26, 2017, 04:02:03 PM
Today's AtV is live. It's mostly about AI and rendered planets.


Meanwhile, over there... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5qcrch/star_citizen_around_the_verse_engineering/dcy83iu/)

(http://i.imgur.com/sAOYHw6.png)

I'm shocked.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on January 26, 2017, 10:34:50 PM
oh-oh. over at CIG/F42, a dozen devs cried out in fear

http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846 (http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846)

remember back when I wrote that their use of Lumberyard in 2.6 was restricted to it's implementation of AWS/S3, hence the need to display the logo?

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html)

section:  Updated AWS SDK

listing: Amazon S3

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3HXStaWIAAGa6I.jpg:large)

This is not fair play DS this image has been edited. Its not that i didnt like it :laugh: but you shoukd mention that this is a joke.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 27, 2017, 02:30:51 PM
I have no idea what you're talking about.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 27, 2017, 02:31:53 PM
Reading the latest newsletter (http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=32d8ef31243db6075c45571bd&id=9ffdff0ef5&e=b634f4facc)

Quote
This week the Star Citizen dev team made solid strides toward our goals for the 2.6.1 patch, as outlined last week in the revised production schedule report. Meanwhile, others devs that have been locked down to focus on specific tasks and features have continued making progress on elements of the game that will appear further down the road in 3.0 and Squadron 42.

I can't help but remember that time when...

November 2, 2016
http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4757

Quote
When it comes to the 3.0 patch, backers may as well just reconcile the fact that they were lied to – again. It’s not even a case of a missed schedule. He basically came up with a list of features (none of which, according to sources, exists or in a form that would have lent any credibility to his “end of year” promise) he knew backers would fall for, then put it out there as “coming soon”; thus – like the demos at GamesCom and CitizenCon – raising money from the few whales who are still dumb enough to keep giving him money.
...
Rumors and source leaks aside, the writing is on the wall. They are either going to move 2.6 into 2017 – as indeed they should if it’s not ready for test release – or they will try to push some interim 2.5.x minor branch out in order to quash some of the dissent. But the fact remains, waiting until the last minute, or at a time when the bad news won’t affect the anniversary stream, is just another dishonest plan, and one which has become a staple for them.
...
3.0 status: sources say all are still laughing at this one. It simple does NOT exist as was communicated to backers. It was basically a wishlist of items they wanted to see in a point release; and which Roberts when on the record (again) as saying was coming by “year end, and not on Dec 19th like last year“ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-3YBuFI3iI&t=1416).

September 22, 2016
http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4493

Quote
While it does not absolve them of the liability of breaking an NDA, it’s easy to see why it makes sense to the people doing it. Especially in light of the fact that this latest leak has clearly shown that not only is the 2.6 patch most likely not coming in Oct; but that given that the test pattern has a lengthy period from “limited Evocati –> wide testing –> live“, it means that it probably won’t be out until sometime in the Nov/Dec time frame. And that, my friends, all but guarantees that the much touted 3.0 (aka the Jesus Patch) which Chris was heavily promoting at GamesCom (https://youtu.be/Z-3YBuFI3iI?t=1416) as coming by end of the year, is not being released this year. At all. Yeah, I know – shocking. Note that there isn’t even a 2.7 patch. It was once talked about, then came GamesCom and Chris saying that after 2.5 (current), there will be 2.6, and then it’s onto 3.0 – the Jesus Patch which fixes everything, and includes all of the latest promises.

Meanwhile, over there: After yesterday's AtV it has become clear to me we probably won't see any significant news on this game anytime soon (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5qhs23/after_yesterdays_atv_it_has_become_clear_to_me_we/)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on January 27, 2017, 09:54:37 PM
CIG Speak:
The Subsumption AI is navigating lifelike through the Megamap in various Physic Grids.

What do they mean:
My NPC is standing on an Elevator while the assets are streaming.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on January 28, 2017, 01:53:01 AM
oh-oh. over at CIG/F42, a dozen devs cried out in fear

http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846 (http://www.develop-online.net/news/amazon-unveils-amazon-lumberyard-1-7-beta/0228846)

remember back when I wrote that their use of Lumberyard in 2.6 was restricted to it's implementation of AWS/S3, hence the need to display the logo?

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/releasenotes/lumberyard-v1.7.html)

section:  Updated AWS SDK

listing: Amazon S3

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3HXStaWIAAGa6I.jpg:large)

This is not fair play DS this image has been edited. Its not that i didnt like it :laugh: but you shoukd mention that this is a joke.

I was reffering to the "Star Citizen :Everthing is broken" point that was added by someone via photoshop or something to give false information. again i say not that i dont like it but you should mention that this is a edited image as the link you posted shows this in known issues.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/34peslc.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on January 28, 2017, 04:57:53 AM
I liked the joke here. Plus, well it is true, SC is broken :)
Honnestly I like anything that can troll crobart and the shitizens.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 28, 2017, 06:02:52 AM
I was reffering to the "Star Citizen :Everthing is broken" point that was added by someone via photoshop or something to give false information. again i say not that i dont like it but you should mention that this is a edited image as the link you posted shows this in known issues.

That's how the Internet works. It was a joke/meme; and doesn't require any clarification.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 29, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
I liked the joke here. Plus, well it is true, SC is broken :)
Honnestly I like anything that can troll crobart and the shitizens.

Yes and it wasn't exactly difficult to go check the source material either. 
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Padrepapp on January 30, 2017, 02:14:14 AM
EVE Online background used for Star Citizen concept art:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5qkci4/eve_online_nebula_used_in_star_citizen_concept_art/

Although many argue this is normal for concept art, but just for the laughs the EVE online community has=)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 30, 2017, 10:55:56 AM
EVE Online background used for Star Citizen concept art:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5qkci4/eve_online_nebula_used_in_star_citizen_concept_art/

Although many argue this is normal for concept art, but just for the laughs the EVE online community has=)

Yeah, we've been following that. Also, the station is similar to the one from the Destiny art as well.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on January 31, 2017, 04:24:09 PM
Just as I said in 2 blogs, VR is never - ever - coming to Star Citizen. Now confirmed by Ben Parry (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7499151/#Comment_7499151).

(http://imgur.com/DZwSjUN.png)

Kickstarter campaign promise (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen/description)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3hiaqPWEAAkwNI.jpg)

Star Citizen’s long-promised virtual reality support arrives in 2016 (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/star-citizens-long-promised-virtual-reality-support-arrives-in-2016/)

Lest we forget, here is our patsy at SXSW 2015 promising VR (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45Ls1otq1k&feature=youtu.be&t=1975) in a CE build that didn't even have VR support.

UPDATE2

Following my notifying Star Citizen backers of another dumped feature (VR), official CIG spokesman, Ben Parry (https://twitter.com/klumaster), is still putting out fires (1 (http://partedveil.com/index.php), 2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5rbiwv/regarding_vr_dont_hold_your_breath/dd6uytf/?context=3), 3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5rbiwv/regarding_vr_dont_hold_your_breath/dd6tq37/)).

It's hilarious that a dev working on what's now the biggest scam in video game history, is being vilified for telling the truth.

(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/188332576459587584/276358539096883200/Screenshot_2017-02-01_at_9.27.26_AM.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/RyXS3tw.png)

UPDATE1

LMAO!! Ben Parry backpedaled on his comment after I tweeted about it.  :laugh:

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/826575777605021697 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/826575777605021697)

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/826519107633823748 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/826519107633823748)

New version: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7499539/#Comment_7499539 (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7499539/#Comment_7499539)

7:05PM

Quote
Hi @SaturnSquared. Sorry to say, do not hold your breath for this. Ignoring the render tech for VR itself (which given the work we've done, would definitely be a read-and-rewrite job, not a merge-this-file job), making a game properly VR compliant takes a lot of work at the design and testing level regardless of the engine used. We'd probably need to get the framerate up a bit higher too, come to think of it.

10:32PM

Quote
Sorry for any misunderstanding, my point was that some of the key obstacles to VR support aren't about whether the engine has the technical capability for it. That kind of thinking leads to, well, this guy explains it better than I do. I'd prefer we don't accidentally and permanently ruin anyone's ability to enjoy VR.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on January 31, 2017, 04:57:01 PM
If VR isn't designed and implemented as a core feature from day 1, then it's permanently relegated to one of two states:

1)  Complete impossibility
2)  Hacked-on pseudo-vr where the headset does nothing more than mimic mouselook with a pseudo-3D environment

Every action in the Star Citizen "game" that takes away control from your first-person viewpoint will break the illusion and induce motion sickness.  Guess how often they do this for the sake of "immersion"?

I don't even know why VR is even a talking point at this stage.  They have no game, no plans for a game, no design, no ideas, no gameplay loop, no documentation, no functioning engine, no flight physics, and no path forward.  All they have is motion capture and a devastatingly autistic CEO.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on January 31, 2017, 10:10:09 PM
This news needs a higher profile.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 01, 2017, 08:45:40 AM
If VR isn't designed and implemented as a core feature from day 1, then it's permanently relegated to one of two states:

1)  Complete impossibility
2)  Hacked-on pseudo-vr where the headset does nothing more than mimic mouselook with a pseudo-3D environment

Every action in the Star Citizen "game" that takes away control from your first-person viewpoint will break the illusion and induce motion sickness.  Guess how often they do this for the sake of "immersion"?

I don't even know why VR is even a talking point at this stage.  They have no game, no plans for a game, no design, no ideas, no gameplay loop, no documentation, no functioning engine, no flight physics, and no path forward.  All they have is motion capture and a devastatingly autistic CEO.

Yes, that's precisely it. But backers hear about Lumberyard, and think it's going to automagically fix everything.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on February 01, 2017, 09:11:31 AM
I'm still wondering here how deep the dude has been drawn to the cult.
However, he's confirming indeed CIG has never worked on VR integration ever and worse, the poor dude doesn't even seem to know if they intend of doing so.

In the end he's just another one saying sky is green. I just find interesting here that both backers and some of the CIG devs ( seems) are drawn to the cult.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 01, 2017, 10:46:24 AM
I'm still wondering here how deep the dude has been drawn to the cult.
However, he's confirming indeed CIG has never worked on VR integration ever and worse, the poor dude doesn't even seem to know if they intend of doing so.

In the end he's just another one saying sky is green. I just find interesting here that both backers and some of the CIG devs ( seems) are drawn to the cult.

Ben can't keep his mouth shut. That's his problem. Whether what he says is truthful or not, he usual ends up on controversy. This is not the first time. The most recent was the flap ove the Lumberyard engine switch (which didn't happen).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: BigM on February 01, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
If I was a backer I would be screaming for the game not VR. After this long I can't see how they even have any backers left.  No one can be that stupid to think Roberts can release a game, it's in his genes, someone else has to finish it.

I do feel a little bad for Perry, he seems to be one of those guys that can't hold back and has to blurt stuff out.  :smug:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 02, 2017, 02:36:53 PM
So this week's ATV is out...


It's boring as hell. I think CIG are determined to wear down their backer base to the point that they stop caring. Seriously.

Meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5rgfnb/oh_boy_im_gettin_excited_for_this_week_atv/dd76ww1/)

Quote
This week on ATV Programming is hard and shit sucks deal with it. Here is some art that looks like some other art you have already seen. Here is a dude shooting another dude man that shit is great. Speaking of shooting people starmarine is broken we know stop bitching. We are going to release a patch that may or may not fix things in like 3 weeks chill your tits. 3.0 is still on its way soon* Please ignore the comment last year saying it would be done before the end of the year. Network code is hard and no one wants that job so there's like 2 people working on it. They are accepting cookies and hand jobs for encouragement. Please sate them we can't replace them and they could demand literally anything of us and we would have to give in to their wishes.
See you in the verse or more likely in star marine since the PU runs like ass.

They showed about 30 secs of their planetary terrain stuff.

OK, you know what? These are planetary shots from a $12m+ indie game (http://lodgame.com). And those are old shots, seeing as we haven't even switched to UE4 yet.

(http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-30_06.jpg)
(http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-30_13.jpg)
(http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-02-07.jpg)
(http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-02-03.jpg)
(http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-02-02.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 04, 2017, 12:25:08 PM
In the latest newsletter, regional server instances are coming in the 2.6.1 patch (due out Feb 17th (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report))

Quote
Star Citizen Newsletter - Regional Servers Inbound
February 3rd, 2017

Greetings Citizen.

Across all our studios, work on the upcoming Alpha 2.6.1 patch is progressing nicely. There’s still some UI work to complete and stability issues to iron out, but, as you can see in our updated production schedule report, we’re almost ready to get this latest patch into the players’ hands. In fact, we're happy to announce an addition to this patch. Thanks to the great work by the Live Ops, Backend and UI teams, we're moving up the release of the Regional Servers to 2.6.1, so players will be able to choose which server (North America, Europe, or Australia) they join to ensure the best connection possible. Once these are running, we’ll be able to run more tests to assess whether more locations will be needed.

This week I split my time between Foundry 42 offices in the UK and Germany. I’ll be spending another week in the trenches with the devs at Foundry 42 to oversee our advancement on a number of fronts.

Thanks to everyone who showed their support for Star Citizen last weekend at both PAX South and the community-organized Bar Citizen event in San Antonio, TX. It’s just another example of how dedicated and inspiring our fanbase can be. In fact, we’ve been looking for more ways to to bring the community front and center. That’s why this week we premiered a new show called Citizens of the Stars that focuses on the important part you play in Star Citizen. Give it a watch to see some of the incredible things the community is doing.

-- Chris Roberts

Basically, using the AWS support in LumberYard, they can do this now. They couldn't do it before with Google Compute Engine because they'd have to write an ass-ton of code to do it. Amazon has done it for them via their AWS->CryEngine->Lumberyard implementation. Which is one of the things I wrote about in my recent Irreconcilable Differences (http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/) blog in which I discuss the Lumberyard switch.

Forget about fragmentation of their already dwindling player base; the AWS cloud instances won't cost them anything if nobody is connecting to them. In fact, all it will cost them is whatever the AWS bandwidth costs to update them. And since each patch is like 40GB, well then.

What's going to be absolutely hilarious is if they don't enable (in the UI) the ability to select an AWS instance to connect to. which means that if you are in Australia and can't find players, there won't be any way to switch to US based instances which would obviously be more populated. Much rage will be heard.

This is really just another check mark in their pledge promise sheet. Only about a few hundred more to go.

Oh, and lest we forget, some of the backers are rejoicing "regional servers", while forgetting the fact that promises that Chris Roberts made about "1000 player instances" are never - ever - going to happen. And it certainly isn't going to happen with regional AWS instances. Have fun with your sub-par 16 player instances (not to be confused with the higher 24 client allowed in the shopping hub).

And if they are in fact implementing LumberYard GameLift (https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/), my reaction ---->  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on February 04, 2017, 09:06:45 PM
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/warfareww1-140325230336-phpapp02/95/world-war-1-trench-lifewarfare-1-638.jpg?cb=1395788719)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 08, 2017, 05:11:55 PM
The 2.6.1 patch is out in the PTU (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5ssabq/ptu_261_patch_notes/?st=iyxmokf8&sh=dac40022). Basically bug fixes and all the stuff they cut out of 2.6 in order to ship it in Dec.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 08, 2017, 05:52:06 PM
Ooops, someone let the cat out of the proverbial bag (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7514585/#Comment_7514585).

(https://i.imgur.com/mOfIS44.jpg)

Quote
This will most likely be a setup issue with the trigger volumes and logic that the art & design teams use to control color grading across the level (e.g. if you manage to escape a space station but don't pass through specific trigger volumes then the color grade might not be updated). If there is a known set of steps to reliably reproduce the issue I'd recommend raising it in the issue council.
This setup however is intended to be replaced with a more reliable and systemic system to control color grading where every room is tagged with the desired color grade / mood (either by art or procedurally by code). This system will be updated every frame and doesn't rely on hand placed trigger volumes so will never get into an incorrect state, even if you somehow teleport from one location to another. This will likely have a dependency on the 'room system' being developed in LA so it's something we intend to address later in the year, and is a required feature for both 3.0 and Squadron 42.
Cheers,
Ali Brown - Director of Graphics Engineering

3.0 "by end of the year"

Totally called it.

Note also that Ali B (employee to contractor) is Ben Parry's boss. He now has a forum account (he's been around since 2014) and has made a total of 2 posts. Makes you think.

But yeah, back on Nov 2nd 2016 when I said 3.0 was pure fiction (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-4757) and that croberts basically LIED at CitizenCon 2016 when he revealed this 2.6 - 4.0 roadmap (http://imgur.com/a/y9NrY). Note that even the dev schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) currently has NO mention of 3.0.

Quote
3.0 status: sources say all are still laughing at this one. It simple does NOT exist as was communicated to backers. It was basically a wishlist of items they wanted to see in a point release; and which Roberts when on the record (again) as saying was coming by “year end, and not on Dec 19th like last year“. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-3YBuFI3iI&t=1416)

(http://i.imgur.com/54axyWT.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 09, 2017, 08:09:12 AM
Ho Lee Cow!! Just as I predicted (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/829499514281193473), Ali B did go back in and made a correction to his post (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7516130/#Comment_7516130).  :laugh:

(http://imgur.com/xHRlhSD.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: SpaceTroll on February 09, 2017, 09:15:41 PM
Ho Lee Cow!! Just as I predicted (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/829499514281193473), Ali B did go back in and made a correction to his post (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/7516130/#Comment_7516130).  :laugh:

(http://imgur.com/xHRlhSD.jpg)

Ey Derek. There is a nice spanish thread here

https://noticiasstarcitizen.wordpress.com

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 11, 2017, 04:02:35 PM
Holy Crap! Have you guys seen the Jan 2017 monthly report (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15704-Monthly-Studio-Report)?

Highlights:

- Oxygen modeling
- New "language" for backend development

They're nuts. That aside from the fact that it's all bullshit.

In LoD, right now, there is an oxygen meter that's monitored if you go under water. When you run out while under, you die. If you come up, it refills. Just like what happens if your jetpack runs out of energy; you fall to the ground.

And I have modeled oxygen in all my previous BC/UC games for the same reason, and it uses the same method. It works, and there is no need to reinvent the wheel or chase bullshit fidelity.

There is no reason for any oxygen modeling (which can use the same modeling they do for eva btw) like they're suggesting; let alone a new 'language' for any backend work. Of course, notice how they didn't even say what that is; other than give it a fancy name.

I think all of this is a ploy to justify the bullshit development and costs. And these devs are just pulling a paycheck now, without asking any questions.

Just as I took one look at a Summer 2015 monthly update like this, then concluded that the project was fucked, which prompted my first blog; this update is just another nail in that opinion coffin.

And we're still here, a full 18 months later, 350+ people, $142m+ and neither of the two promised games is anywhere near completion.

Anyone reading this latest update and thinking, "yeah these clowns are making a game", and didn't ask for a refund, deserves to lose their money.

Just as I said back in July 2015, there is no way this game - as pitched - gets made.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on February 11, 2017, 06:59:13 PM
People read these reports and believe them.

I remember reading some of the Star Marine delay excuse weekly reports in 2015 just before Chris pulled it.

Once you have been lied to, to that extent by the person responsible,  your trust has been betrayed to such an extent that you should'nt believe anything from that source again.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Hater115 on February 11, 2017, 09:26:38 PM
In LoD, right now, there is an oxygen meter that's monitored if you go under water. When you run out while under, you die. If you come up, it refills. Just like what happens if your jetpack runs out of energy; you fall to the ground.

Why would you model O2 underwater if the player is already theoretically wearing some sort of high-pressure space suit that supports O2 support? I believe these things are kind of a waste of time to develop too but they have gone on record saying that they want to simulate the need of having O2 systems and power systems (making them a limited resource and all that), so it would make sense for them to make these systems different from yours. They are developing their systems the best way it would fit for them, not the best way it would fit for you.


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on February 11, 2017, 09:48:57 PM
In LoD, right now, there is an oxygen meter that's monitored if you go under water. When you run out while under, you die. If you come up, it refills. Just like what happens if your jetpack runs out of energy; you fall to the ground.

Why would you model O2 underwater if the player is already theoretically wearing some sort of high-pressure space suit that supports O2 support? I believe these things are kind of a waste of time to develop too but they have gone on record saying that they want to simulate the need of having O2 systems and power systems (making them a limited resource and all that), so it would make sense for them to make these systems different from yours. They are developing their systems the best way it would fit for them, not the best way it would fit for you.

You're missing some context.  The "oxygen" system CIG is claiming to have supposedly monitors O2 levels in the blood, respiration rates, simulate the entire biological effect on oxygen on living systems... it's all too ridiculous to go into here.  The end result is going to be an oxygen meter, and as Derek is pointing out, it can just go down when there's no air, back up when you change the tank, and so on.  There's no need to claim you're programming biology itself into the game if a meter does the same job, but this being CIG, that's exactly what they're doing.

Of course if it makes it into the game it'll be just a meter because that's what is sane.  But they'll say there are real calculations that go down to the mitochondria level of the man wearing the space suit, and backers will believe it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Hater115 on February 11, 2017, 11:08:42 PM


You're missing some context.  The "oxygen" system CIG is claiming to have supposedly monitors O2 levels in the blood, respiration rates, simulate the entire biological effect on oxygen on living systems... it's all too ridiculous to go into here.  The end result is going to be an oxygen meter, and as Derek is pointing out, it can just go down when there's no air, back up when you change the tank, and so on.  There's no need to claim you're programming biology itself into the game if a meter does the same job, but this being CIG, that's exactly what they're doing.

Of course if it makes it into the game it'll be just a meter because that's what is sane.  But they'll say there are real calculations that go down to the mitochondria level of the man wearing the space suit, and backers will believe it.

I personally seem to remember that the main haul of the O2 system that they say that they were building was mainly "special" due to a variety of factors including rooms cycling O2 between each other. I know a bunch of their explanation of how things work are just an over complicated way of saying something simple, but I don't think they mentioned the O2 working like that. Look back to that 4 part ATV a couple months back for the O2 system in question (I believe it is, it might be the Citcon pre-atv thing also).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on February 12, 2017, 06:55:48 AM
Whatever they say is bollox at this point. The whole lot of shit they claim they're developing or how they want that system to be simulated etc. Again they could as well say 'we're developing a game' or 'we're selling pizzas' it's the same. Chris Robert is the Trump of video game industry.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on February 12, 2017, 07:01:17 AM
I personally seem to remember that the main haul of the O2 system that they say that they were building was mainly "special" due to a variety of factors including rooms cycling O2 between each other. I know a bunch of their explanation of how things work are just an over complicated way of saying something simple, but I don't think they mentioned the O2 working like that. Look back to that 4 part ATV a couple months back for the O2 system in question (I believe it is, it might be the Citcon pre-atv thing also).

I spent some time looking for the exact quotes last night so I could include it in my post, but there is such an overwhelming amount of material to go through, and if you see enough of it, it's practically the Library of Babel of features and promises.  At any given time, Chris has said any given feature will be in Star Citizen, so it will be interesting to see what the MVP actually winds up being, if anything.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 12, 2017, 07:16:35 AM
Why would you model O2 underwater if the player is already theoretically wearing some sort of high-pressure space suit that supports O2 support? I believe these things are kind of a waste of time to develop too but they have gone on record saying that they want to simulate the need of having O2 systems and power systems (making them a limited resource and all that), so it would make sense for them to make these systems different from yours. They are developing their systems the best way it would fit for them, not the best way it would fit for you.

You just made the same assumption you're accusing me of in that last sentence.

To answer your question. In my games, Oxygen in suits isn't infinite. Just like jetpack energy, vehicle and aircraft fuel resources, ammo etc. It's called resource management. Try playing some games that model this sort of thing.

Your inference that a high pressure space suit somehow negates Oxygen resource modeling, is an ignorant one. The two aren't the same thing.

There is nothing in the monthly report that leads anyone of sound mind and body, to believe that what they are describing is in any way, shape or form, "the best way it would fit for them". Even so, why would the current working model which they have for the suits and EVA, need to change? What does it add to the game to make it better, finished quicker etc? Nothing. It's all rubbish.

And every game in history that models any sort of resource management, does it in simplified form because at the end of the day, it's just a glorified meter; no different from a health meter, stamina, fatigue or stuff like that.

ps. LoD already models not only Oxygen, but also stamina, fatigue etc, all based on character type, weight of items carried etc. And it affects all forms of movement. It's not rocket science, and there's nothing revolutionary or ground breaking about it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 12, 2017, 07:30:05 AM
You're missing some context.  The "oxygen" system CIG is claiming to have supposedly monitors O2 levels in the blood, respiration rates, simulate the entire biological effect on oxygen on living systems... it's all too ridiculous to go into here.  The end result is going to be an oxygen meter, and as Derek is pointing out, it can just go down when there's no air, back up when you change the tank, and so on.  There's no need to claim you're programming biology itself into the game if a meter does the same job, but this being CIG, that's exactly what they're doing.

Of course if it makes it into the game it'll be just a meter because that's what is sane.  But they'll say there are real calculations that go down to the mitochondria level of the man wearing the space suit, and backers will believe it.

Precisely.

Heck, we have detection routines which determine if a player is in water, and if so whether their head is above or below the water level; at which time the Oxygen sensor kicks in. And when the suit's Oxygen is depleted, the air in their lungs - which is simply a variable - kicks in. They then have to get their head above water or die. And when above, they automatically take a deep breath which refills the lungs air variable, while the suit automatically refills with air.

All very simple math that takes less than a morning's work to implement and test.

We did this why? Because you can get shot down over water, and while you can swim and stay above water, you will want to go under water to avoid detection, being shot at etc. Plus we have naval vehicles - including a submersible - which you can exit in water, get shot out of etc. So we don't didn't do this on a whim, or just for bullet points in a feature list. And it's been this way since the first Universal Combat game - circa 2000 (1st game released in 2004).

Adding nonsensical features for the heck of it, is a sign of poor design, project management, and a project doomed to fail.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 13, 2017, 10:32:02 AM
With planets on the 3.0 menu, I thought I'd catalog and bookmark this for future reference.

10 For The Chairman EP 78 (May 2016) (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15228-10-For-The-Chairman) in which the discussion about procedurally generated planets, takes center stage and an hilarious turn.

Still not here. And it's almost as if all of these were just R&D tech demos designed to show the non-existent progress on this front...

"Nyx Landing Zone Preview" (Aug 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YMlnn4Ngk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2YMlnn4Ngk)

"Pupil To Planet" (Dec 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLTm8DZ8s4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLTm8DZ8s4)

"Seamless procedural planetary landing gameplay" (Dec 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5XSiww9ZO4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5XSiww9ZO4)

"Alpha 3.0 gamescom 2016 Gameplay" (Aug 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1wX1Kk3Ajg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1wX1Kk3Ajg)

"Procedural Planets v2" (Oct 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdCFTF8j7yI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdCFTF8j7yI)

...and that sandworm on a planet (Oct 2016)

https://youtu.be/XuDj5v81Nd0?t=5120 (https://youtu.be/XuDj5v81Nd0?t=5120)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 13, 2017, 01:15:34 PM
Remember that time in Aug 2016 when croberts said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-3YBuFI3iI&t=1416) that 3.0 was coming in Dec, and definitely not on Dec 19th? Yup. I wrote about that (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-5064) on Dec 13.

Quote
“..so, it’s our big end of the year release. er so er yeah, so we’re gonna get it out the end of the year; hopefully not on December 19th but, er, like last year….but it is a big one, so, not making er, I got shot for making promises, but er, that’s our goal.”

(http://i.imgur.com/54axyWT.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 17, 2017, 06:14:23 AM
These guys really do think (http://"https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/371584/multi-region-servers-thanks-but") that they're going to be getting nvule1cD_zk[/youtube] player instances (http://"[youtube), inter-instance comms etc. Like seriously.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 17, 2017, 12:51:29 PM
I wrote a thing about instancing over at FDEV (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5168394&viewfull=1#post5168394)



It remains the Holy Grail for online connectivity in terms of twitch games. There is a reason that companies with vast resources, still rely on instanced game sessions - even MMOs.

The Planetside games which are twitch based and tout the largest number of clients in a session, still lagged - badly - when > 32 clients were in the general vicinity. And when they went for the GBWR record for the most clients connected to a session, it was unplayable. The record was about connectivity - not playability.

Eve Online - which isn't twitch based - literally invented a mass of software to host their game. And even so, when it's heavily populated in an area, they use time-dilated updates to keep every one in sync.

The only time that "1000 client instances" makes sense, is if they somehow - automagically solve the n+1 connectivity problem. Considering the clown shoes involved in the project, that's highly unlikely.  Again, we're in year 6 and they haven't progressed beyond standard networking in the original CryEngine. So there's that.

The thing with cloud servers like AWS & GCE is that you can do all kinds of nifty things. But they were never designed for the demands of twitch based games. That's why very few use them. Heck, even some of my friends working on games for Microsoft with Azure, are finding this out. See the upcoming Crackdown game.

Basically, you can't have "1000 client instances". What you can have are "1000 client sessions" via inter-instance communications. This - which is basically rocket science - means something like this:

i1(n+250) // instance + client count
i2(n+250)
i3(n+250)
i4(n+250)

Those are 4 are Amazon EC2 Dedicated Hosts (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/dedicated-hosts/) running in Intel Xeon hardware server clusters. Also see the AMI requirement (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/AMIs.html) and what an EC2 is (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/concepts.html). You can also use the free tier (https://aws.amazon.com/free/) to test your app before jumping off a cliff and actually doing it.

This is the part where panic mode sets in. (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ebs-ec2-config.html) See those instance types, bandwidth caps etc? Yeah.

Without getting technical, with my above example you have a situation whereby they have to create 4 (or more) instances (copies) of the game.

i1 goes live, then gradually fills up with clients. As it gets filled up, because AWS charges for BOTH in/out bandwidth, the more clients, the higher the costs. It's a lot scarier than that.

i2, i3, i4, all go live - same as above.

Nobody in i1 is going to see or interact with anyone in the other instances. Even if you imagine this being a walled off garden whereby i1-client1 is parked on the edge, he will never see i2-client1. They can't see, shoot, or interact with each other. For all intent and purposes they know nothing about each other.

In order to have "1000 client" instances, you need to have 1000 clients in an instance. Which would mean 1000 clients being able to connect and interact with each other in the above. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Period. End of story. And there isn't a single Xeon hardware server on AWS which would somehow automagically spawn an instance configured for 1000 clients in a twitch based game.

If you "stitch" the instances using clever tricks, such that you have 4 instances each with 250 clients, it's no longer "1000 client" instance, but rather a "1000 client" cluster. And in order to give the illusion of 1000 clients in the world, you have to somehow come up with inter- and intra- instance communications such that, using the walled garden example above, all clients within range can somehow see, chat, engage each other.

Well guess what? Now you're in alchemy territory. You now have an instance whereby i1-client1 fires a missile at i2-client1 and that missile travels through the i1 instance, reaches an area where it is destroyed and appears (re-created) at in i2 at the location of i2-client1 <---- that fool has probably already buggered off, died etc by the time the server code figures out that i1 just fired off a missile at a target in a remote instance which may or may no longer exist.

It gets better. That missile, along with all the calculations for i1-client1 and i2-client1, need to be calculated (God help you if you aren't using server-side arbitration - which by SC isn't using) on-the-fly and in real-time. All the time. Think of the bandwidth.

Now multiply the horrendous notion above to n+1 for a set of clients.

Then plan to be on vacation when the AWS bill shows up for that month.

Here's the hilarious part. Instead of planning to build this from the start, much like Frontier did, they decided to just wing it. And now, six years later, they're still stuck with the basic CryEngine networking layer.

What is even more hilarious is that - right from the start - Chris (it's in the Kickstarter, interviews etc) claimed he wasn't making an MMO. Then, out of the Blue, he was. Suspiciously that was after it dawned on them that they would make more money by selling the entire Verse as an MMO through the sale of assets. They would never - ever - have been able to raise this much money for a single player or session based game. But the fact is, assuming they deliver (which imo they won't) both of these games, the multiplayer is going to remain as it is now. A session based instanced game which will need a witch doctor to get it to handle more than 16 (let alone 1000) clients in combat.

Further reading to see how experts who thought long and hard about this before designing it; but still ended up with a less-than stellar solution to a massive problem:

VERY basic guide for ED networking (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238233)

AWS re:Invent 2015 | (GAM403) From 0 to 60 Million Player Hours in 400B Star Systems (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0)

This is why most of who do this stuff for a living, and with decades under our belt, simply can't fathom how they could possibly be making these FALSE statements. Especially when you consider that when this whole thing collapses, and the lawsuits start flying, these are the sort of statements that are going to end up coming back to haunt them.



Quote
hairychris;5166795]I still have no idea how 1000+ will be technically possible, but I know sod-all about game development.

And that quoted statement doesn't make a huge amount of sense, unless they're having instances ("servers") within instances ("instances") in which case it's still instanced, just called something different.

It's all rubbish tbh.

An "instance" is just a copy of the entire game. It came to be when describing a single server (hardware) running multiple copies (instances). Even a single server running a single copy of the game, is a "dedicated server instance"

And cloud servers are no different, except a GCE|AWS instance is just a software copy running on hardware servers and with no access to physical machines.

e.g. LoD runs only on hardware servers (co-lo at a data center). And we run separate "scenes" (aka levels) each with the ability to handle 1-256 clients (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/). Each server is powerful enough to handle multiple scenes. So we can run either n+1 space scenes on a server or just 1. In short, the hw server is hosting the instances.

And the way it's all connected is based on architecture we built specifically (http://www.lodgame.com/downloads/LOD_wide_span_global_server.jpg) so that we could control the number of clients in each scene. So if a scene has a client cap (which is server-side configured), no more clients can connect to it until one client drops or leaves. And all scenes are connected in such a way that it all appears as one universe (though it's just 13 connected scenes stitched together with magic (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-the-game-world-divided/)). A player going from a space scene on one server to a planetary scene on another server, doesn't notice anything, as it's just an IP connection via a jump gate. And during the jump handshake, if the target server is full or off-line, the connection is rejected, you get a message - and you stay were you are and try again later.

Also, a single hw server runs a number of scene instances depending on their resource requirement e.g. space scenes don't have as much stuff as planets; so we can run 2-4 space scenes on 1 server, while running 1-2 planetary scenes on another server. Our scenes are of 3 types. space (x4), planet (x4), interiors station|capital ship (x5).

There is no gain to having 1000 clients in an instance if the performance is just going to suffer, thus yielding a horrid experience for gamers. And even if you did it, the bandwidth costs alone - especially on cloud instances - would be cost prohibitive.

When running based on an architecture like ours, not only do you get around the n+1 client issue, but player-player comms is a non-issue because it's all one universe. You can be in a scene instance (e.g. space) and communicate with someone in another instance (e.g. planet). Sure, you won't see them due to distance and location, but you can still communicate with them. And if by some fluke a 256 scene instance ends up being full, unless all of them are within a certain range bubble, the packets are priorititized based on proximity.

And we don't have the problem of "grouping with friends" because it's all one cohesive universe. No matter where or when you connect, you will always find your friends; and can join them as long as the scene they are on isn't pop-locked.

A small team of renegade indies, led by a semi-retired mad man, built this. In a span of under two years. And it just works. To the extent that, if you look at our changelog (http://lodgame.com/changelog/), we haven't messed with networking in over three years. And never underestimate the power of AI bot clients to use for load balancing and testing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on February 17, 2017, 10:57:06 PM
Derek,

I am not a developer.

Given that CR was out of the industry for ten years and (I assume) wasn't developing MMOs himself when he last was, what process would he reasonably have gone through to come up with the fantasy set up you describe above ?

Most players with experience of MMOs would know from personal experience playing them that what CR is selling is a huge technical challenge, and as you say, if he'd spoken to a few honest up to date MMO developers when he was thinking about SC, they would surely have told him the limitations of what was currently possible.

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion CR knew all along he couldn't deliver all these concurrent players in one instance (or disguise it to look like it was happening).

He would also have known new technology wasn't going to appear in time to solve the problem for this game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 18, 2017, 08:55:50 AM
Derek,

I am not a developer.

Given that CR was out of the industry for ten years and (I assume) wasn't developing MMOs himself when he last was, what process would he reasonably have gone through to come up with the fantasy set up you describe above ?

Most players with experience of MMOs would know from personal experience playing them that what CR is selling is a huge technical challenge, and as you say, if he'd spoken to a few honest up to date MMO developers when he was thinking about SC, they would surely have told him the limitations of what was currently possible.

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion CR knew all along he couldn't deliver all these concurrent players in one instance (or disguise it to look like it was happening).

He would also have known new technology wasn't going to appear in time to solve the problem for this game.

He's not a developer on the game, writes no code etc. So most of this boils down to him either blatantly lying about what his devs told him, or he simply doesn't understand what they're telling him. I simply refuse to believe that devs have told him that they could have "1000 player instances". Then of course, his brother and cohort, Erin, just basically repeated the same thing (http://wccftech.com/star-citizen-exclusive-interview-erin-roberts/). So they're being complicit and continue to lie to backers. But guess what? None of this matters as I'm certain that they don't believe that they will be around long enough for them to actually do any of what they're claiming. It's a scam. Pure and simple.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on February 18, 2017, 10:09:04 PM
So if these gets into court, they would have to answer questions about how they reasonably believed this was viable ?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 19, 2017, 06:34:34 AM
So if these gets into court, they would have to answer questions about how they reasonably believed this was viable ?

Yes. They would be in a deposition under oath and they would have to explain how on Earth they ever thought it was possible. Worse for them? They have to show evidence that what they were touting was actually possible, done before, what work they did to move toward that goal etc. That's why the FTC ends up nailing so many companies for false advertising and consumer fraud.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 19, 2017, 06:37:10 AM
Meanwhile, even more stock footage has been found in the latest concept ship image. Seriously, this isn't even funny anymore.

(https://i.imgur.com/YzZDik0.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/RHUd4ID.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/j5RmT71b.jpg)

this (http://www.123rf.com/search.php?word=39386044&mediapopup=39386044):

(https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yuzach/yuzach1504/yuzach150400012/39386044-space-theme-banners-and-cards-with-flat-astronomic-symbols-of-planets-rocket-stars-telescope-for-des.jpg?ver=6)

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/seamless-children-cartoon-space-pattern-rockets-278602232 (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/seamless-children-cartoon-space-pattern-rockets-278602232)

(https://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/701293/278602232/stock-vector-seamless-children-cartoon-space-pattern-with-rockets-planets-stars-and-universe-over-the-dark-278602232.jpg)

(https://d1nu64hda2bfzz.cloudfront.net/forums/monthly_2016_04/570e780f3493e_DLcape.png.6bdbe589cc3bd9c5543a0f42cba6534c.png)

UPDATE:

Someone on SA noticed something else here: (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=669#post469613999)



I don't know if it was mentioned, but I'm pretty sure they did steal it.

(https://i.imgur.com/PNdGEEf.png)

(https://thumb9.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/701293/278602232/stock-vector-seamless-children-cartoon-space-pattern-with-rockets-planets-stars-and-universe-over-the-dark-278602232.jpg)

If you look closely the cloud that's covered by the watermark is different from the second one while on the bed sheet the two clouds are the same. Several of the stars around the watermark are missing and a larger star has been added beneath Uranus.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 20, 2017, 04:31:21 AM
Meanwhile, even more stock footage has been found in the latest concept ship image. Seriously, this isn't even funny anymore.
The expensive ships may be feared for their speed and firepower, but their battle-hardened crew sleeps in kiddy blankets for 10-year olds. What a strange 'Verse.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 20, 2017, 01:01:51 PM
Meanwhile, even more stock footage has been found in the latest concept ship image. Seriously, this isn't even funny anymore.
The expensive ships may be feared for their speed and firepower, but their battle-hardened crew sleeps in kiddy blankets for 10-year olds. What a strange 'Verse.

LOL!! You noticed that too, huh?  :lol:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 21, 2017, 12:21:15 PM
The latest art copyright infringement post has been updated with more info. (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1110#msg1110)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on February 21, 2017, 01:49:02 PM
So they have 150m$, and 300zillions staff around, but they can't pay for textures and alike with copyright on the inet , and they can't have bunch of their staff to quality work on textures?

There is another solution : they don't have whatzillion staff, they only have one dude on photoshop and they save the money by making him/her steal the stuff because obviously the poor dude has no time to do all that design work alone. OR They don't even have this guy anymore and it's CR himself doing such lol.
As usual it doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on February 21, 2017, 02:11:37 PM
and the shills are defending art theft
"it's allowed in prototyping"
"The project is not commercial at the moment"
"Concept images that are send out to a million users are not to make money"

They ignore all facts regarding art theft and are not worried that backer founds are used to pay fines that are 100 times higher than the original art.

CIG became worse than every publisher in every aspect ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 21, 2017, 02:23:56 PM
So they have 150m$, and 300zillions staff around, but they can't pay for textures and alike with copyright on the inet , and they can't have bunch of their staff to quality work on textures?

You obviously don't understand how game texture development works. It's common for large companies like CIG to download outsource textures development from Shutterstock to the cloud.

But don't worry: texture development will eventually be moved in-house and all blankets will have to be redesigned from scratch anyway to conform to the highest visual and artistic quality demanded by the boss. For starters, look at the primitive cloud and rocket shapes and colors in the current blanket version. The polygon count, color gradients, and detail will need to be increased at least tenfold to make this look good enough in the final game.

Also, don't hold your breath for the 3.0 release until the blankets have been refactored.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on February 21, 2017, 07:42:54 PM
Parp refactor incoming, can't wait.edit
But why, why they have to steal? Behind the curtain wtf is going on lol. 300 staff? and they obviously have to go steal ?.
 And since they've been doing this for long , I've been wondering either wtf within those 300 staff are really assigned into producing a game? Or are they all contractors working at the mocap studio and such stuff? at wich Chris Roberts and his wife like to go spend some mocap holidays from time to time, when they're not busy spending backers's money on 1stclass travels or some montecarlo boat ?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 22, 2017, 08:08:24 AM
Hey, who remembers back when I was saying that the CitizenCon presentation was just a "demo", with no ties to the game, and that 3.0 is a dream, that NONE of that is going in it etc. Not to mention the fact that, well croberts was basically lying when he said that 3.0 was coming "before Dec 19th".

Well, they had released this lore PDF. Since nobody actually reads them; bored Goons went back to take a look (God only knows why tbh) and, well, the evidence and hilarity were in there all along.

Just read the exchanges in this edition. It's amazing. Like, seriously, read it. The except below is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nov 2016 Jump Point edition (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/nrnu5u2bjvs3er/source/JumpPoint_04-11_Nov-16_Homemaking.pdf)

(https://i.imgur.com/2FtSYX1.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4tkBQd.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 22, 2017, 08:54:50 AM
Overnight, 2 backers gave CIG $30K by buying 2 completionist packs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Combos/The-Completionist-Digital) (don't contain all the ships btw).

I kid you not.

Let's wait and see if they later put in for refunds; as that may be a clear sign of money laundering.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5R-ZIRWAAISwVn.jpg:large)

And as someone pointed out, a 3rd of the income came from those two purchases

(https://i.imgur.com/3p8fHEQ.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 22, 2017, 01:00:51 PM
Parp refactor incoming, can't wait.edit
But why, why they have to steal? Behind the curtain wtf is going on lol. 300 staff? and they obviously have to go steal ?.
 And since they've been doing this for long , I've been wondering either wtf within those 300 staff are really assigned into producing a game? Or are they all contractors working at the mocap studio and such stuff? at wich Chris Roberts and his wife like to go spend some mocap holidays from time to time, when they're not busy spending backers's money on 1stclass travels or some montecarlo boat ?

I've been trying to wrap my head around this for some time too. For me, the most plausible hypothesis at this time is that they originally started out to produce a game, but lost sight of their target along the way. So their trip eventually came to a halt in the middle of nowhere, when they decided that earning a living as car ship salesmen with a fancy showroom and a parking lot in the backyard for gullible customers to test drive shiny hunks of desire would be an equally satisfying outcome of their original mission. For this line of work, focusing on paint jobs, textile design and white-wall tires makes perfect sense of course. Unfortunately, they never told anyone that they're not in the original game business anymore, which is why we see this amazing gap between their promised fantasies and the actual stuff they deliver.

I just hope that Martin Scorsese will be around long enough to turn this s**t into a great motion picture along the lines of "Wolf on Wall Street" when it finally goes down.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 22, 2017, 02:40:48 PM
I wrote a thing about instancing over at FDEV (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5168394&viewfull=1#post5168394)

The job just got a lot harder  :wave:

(http://i.imgur.com/EUZnaSf.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 22, 2017, 05:15:24 PM
I wrote a thing about instancing over at FDEV (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5168394&viewfull=1#post5168394)

The job just got a lot harder  :wave:

(http://i.imgur.com/EUZnaSf.jpg)

*sigh* I guess I have to go back. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Man, these guys are absolutely dumb. As rocks. :psyduck:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stan on February 22, 2017, 05:23:32 PM
Hey, who remembers back when I was saying that the CitizenCon presentation was just a "demo", with no ties to the game, and that 3.0 is a dream, that NONE of that is going in it etc. Not to mention the fact that, well croberts was basically lying when he said that 3.0 was coming "before Dec 19th".

Well, they had released this lore PDF. Since nobody actually reads them; bored Goons went back to take a look (God only knows why tbh) and, well, the evidence and hilarity were in there all along.

Just read the exchanges in this edition. It's amazing. Like, seriously, read it. The except below is just the tip of the iceberg.

Nov 2016 Jump Point edition (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/nrnu5u2bjvs3er/source/JumpPoint_04-11_Nov-16_Homemaking.pdf)

(https://i.imgur.com/2FtSYX1.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Q4tkBQd.png)

Did Chris Roberts actually say it was gameplay on stage when he introduced it ?

The intent to deceive is there for sure ...but what do people think are the smoking gun quotes from him...

        1.18 in I think is where he starts to bullshit about this.


"this is all 100% live, in the engine, in real time" 1.24.50 in
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on February 22, 2017, 05:33:11 PM
@nightfire
Uh don't get me started on that 64Bit crap.

remember you could easily subdivide the space into sectors and only Positional Data needs to adress the floating point error (not quaternion neither scale)

32Bit Range = 2^31 − 1 = 2,147,483,647
Positional Data: (unsigned) Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1cm Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000km Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000.000.000.000km Scale]
Positional Data max: 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 1cm in all axes
this is without touching the range of floating point error because I used only half of the 32bit total range (factor 1.000.000.000)

Whoaaahhh .. triple precision that musste be double double float!!! ... no it isnt't ... it's 3times 32bit which renders to 34bit (with one 32bit value left over) NOT 64 or 128 bit ...

the binary Data per axis would look like:
[00] [0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000] < 32 Bit + 2Bit that gives us 4 32 Bit values - (for easy computing and rendering we pass just 4 32 bit values to the GPU)

Basically KSP is doing it that way, though with 2 32 Bit Values not 3 as seen in this example.

Fake Edit: if you took the 4th 32bit value into the positional data you get ... tadaa ... in the sextillion range and if I shit on Floating point error safe zone in the 100 sextillion range (sounds familiar?)
Star Citizen is selling 34 bit as 64 bit without knowing how binary calculation is working (or with knowing and blantantly ...uhm... not telling the truth)

And this makes me angry, this is something we are working with for decades (tricking out variables was always there) ... now CIG comes in the year 2015 and is selling this as new feature ... and the blinded cultist are cheering and chanting that all other devs are to incompetent not to come with this earlier ... we did but we didn't lie to you and never make a fuss about it.

Aaaand another fake edit:
This sextillion range includes the whole game with all planets, planets surfaces and so on.
Now the funny part. we have a planet that not only rotates, on top of that it should orbit around a sun.
Planets are ... spheres (or potatoes or aubergines depends on what NASA is telling you that day) but we take good ole Spheres.
Spheres are funny because all calculation on the surface is based on pi which is never correct and always an estimate to a point.
Now we shit on floating point error because we are just out of college and think we can avoid it because reasons and our manager likes BIG numbers.
We have to populate a planet with physic bodies (and all physic engines are a little bit .. uhm ... not so precise (this includes physX)) we need physic bodies in a 100 sextillion km range with 1cm precision, on a sphere, which rotates, which circles around a sun (another pi value), thousands of them, with multiple "physics grids".
Basically I may not think too much about it because this is the part my brain heats up.

this system alone would take years of development with a very good and specialised team. Now take a look at port olisar which is not rotating, a flat plane (kind of) and not orbiting around anything.
Take a look at it and see with your own eyes how precise the physic is working there - now imagine this team that produced that buggy mess has to make it work on planets and orbits.

fake fake edit of the fake edit:
Don't get me started on multiple local physics grids or I will start to explain how simple it is to design an elevator in a physic based game ... now just instead of a script give the player control over the elevator and instead of a simple platform just design it as a spaceship alooklike room with a change in the character controller behavior.
If you are into Unity3D there is a module in the shop called Alien Sky for $40 that is doing what Star citizen does (https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/68425)
But CIG is selling it as ... oh I really hate this company with their rebranding of old tech and lying to their community ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 22, 2017, 05:46:52 PM
@nightfire
Uh don't get me started on that 64Bit crap.

remember you could easily subdivide the space into sectors and only Positional Data needs to adress the floating point error (not quaternion neither scale)

32Bit Range = 2^31 − 1 = 2,147,483,647
Positional Data: (unsigned) Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1cm Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000km Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000.000.000.000km Scale]
Positional Data max: 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 1cm in all axes
this is without touching the range of floating point error because I used only half of the 32bit total range (factor 1.000.000.000)

Whoaaahhh .. triple precision that musste be double double float!!! ... no it isnt't ... it's 3times 32bit which renders to 34bit (with one 32bit value left over) NOT 64 or 128 bit ...

the binary Data per axis would look like:
[00] [0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000] < 32 Bit + 2Bit that gives us 4 32 Bit values - (for easy computing and rendering we pass just 4 32 bit values to the GPU)

Basically KSP is doing it that way, though with 2 32 Bit Values not 3 as seen in this example.

Fake Edit: if you took the 4th 32bit value into the positional data you get ... tadaa ... in the sextillion range and if I shit on Floating point error safe zone in the 100 sextillion range (sounds familiar?)
Star Citizen is selling 34 bit as 64 bit without knowing how binary calculation is working (or with knowing and blantantly ...uhm... not telling the truth)

And this makes me angry, this is something we are working with for decades (tricking out variables was always there) ... now CIG comes in the year 2015 and is selling this as new feature ... and the blinded cultist are cheering and chanting that all other devs are to incompetent not to come with this earlier ... we did but we didn't lie to you and never make a fuss about it.

Well you're a brave man for going so far as to explain in such detail, something that probably 95% of the backers won't even understand, let alone acknowledge. I did my bit until I was Blue in the face. And that was BEFORE they even release the PU.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on February 22, 2017, 06:10:47 PM
Overnight, 2 backers gave CIG $30K by buying 2 completionist packs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Combos/The-Completionist-Digital) (don't contain all the ships btw).

I kid you not.

Let's wait and see if they later put in for refunds; as that may be a clear sign of money laundering.
The backers will never know ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 23, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
Buckle up for another session of Vogon Poetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon#Poetry):


(http://i.imgur.com/nKHsDJ4.jpg)

Maybe they should drop the C in "Cloud Imperium Games"?  :ohdear:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 23, 2017, 01:41:11 PM
Ho Lee Cow!! I'm ded.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5vnq5m/261_so_far_for_me/?st=izisnwh6&sh=51ee9498

Quote
it crashed my game so hard that the sound started coming out of my monitor rather than my headset
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 23, 2017, 03:17:32 PM
32Bit Range = 2^31 − 1 = 2,147,483,647
Positional Data: (unsigned) Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1cm Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000km Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000.000.000.000km Scale]
Positional Data max: 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 1cm in all axes
this is without touching the range of floating point error because I used only half of the 32bit total range (factor 1.000.000.000)

Whoaaahhh .. triple precision that musste be double double float!!! ... no it isnt't ... it's 3times 32bit which renders to 34bit (with one 32bit value left over) NOT 64 or 128 bit ...

I hear you, but I can't quite figure out your calculation yet. Let me start with the above end result:

Our example coordinate system shall have a length of 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km, or 10^21 km per axis. The smallest unit of resolution shall be 1cm, so there are 10^26 units(cm) per axis (1km = 10^5cm).

In my understanding, entropy law dictates that a minimum of log2(x) storage bits will be required to represent x units in a discrete (integer) storage layout. In this case, log2(10^26) = 86.37. So at least 87 bits per axis would be needed to store every arbitrary coordinate value between 0…10^26-1 cm without loss of precision.

If we chose a floating-point storage layout, my understanding is that 10^26 = 27 "significant digits" would need to be stored in our case. Assuming the IEEE 754 floating point standard, the smallest layout which could accommodate this is quadruple-precision (128 bits, and 33 significant digits), since double-precision (64 bits) can only cope with 15 significant digits.

So at this stage I don't understand your conclusion yet that it's possible to represent 10^26 discrete values (units/cm) in 34 bits of storage, as it appears to me that it's not possible to get away with less than 87 bits. :confused: Please walk me through this part of the argument once more.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on February 23, 2017, 06:03:27 PM
[...]

So at this stage I don't understand your conclusion yet that it's possible to represent 10^26 discrete values (units/cm) in 34 bits of storage, as it appears to me that it's not possible to get away with less than 87 bits. :confused: Please walk me through this part of the argument once more.
This is true if you only want to have one variable to store it all per axis

(I just found a small error that I will correct in this example)
I build multiple coordinate systems like a Matrjoschka.

The first 32bit coordinate system is doing 0.000001km (1cm) to 10.000km with three signed 32bit Variable I have 20.000km with a precision of 1cm now in every direction
(one 32Bit per axis)

Now I put my coordinate system in a larger one
The second 32bit coordinate system is doing 10.000km to 10.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 10.000km lets call it the sector Variable if you enter a new sector the subsector variable can be used for the new one, you just need to flip the axis (basically you know exactly where the player entered the sector and can use the 1cm precision accordingly) now we have a max of 20.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 1cm.
"flip the axis" like: - subsector maxY is reached - increase sectorY by 1 - set subsector to minY -
(two 32Bit per axis)

now I put my Sector system in a larger one and call it the universe variable
the third 32bit coordinate system is doing 10.000.000.000.000km to 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 10.000.000.000.000km if the sector max is reached on any axis I increase the universe variable of this axis and set the sector and subsector to min.
(three 32Bit per axis)

now I put my Universe system in a larger one and call it Galaxy variable
the fourth 32bit coordinate system is doing 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km to 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 10.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km
(four 32Bit per axis)
struct myPosition = Vector3(subsectorX(32bit), subsectorY(32bit), subsectorZ(32bit)), Vector3(sectorX(32bit), sectorY(32bit), sectorZ(32bit)), Vector3(universeX(32bit), universeY(32bit), universeZ(32bit)), Vector3(galaxyX(32bit), galaxyY(32bit), galaxyZ(32bit))

[Edit: with reflecting the US numbersystem I am at (signed)10^31 *2km which is 20Nonillion kilometers :D but to avoid floating point errors I would scale it a little bit down :)]

And I am now at 10^31km (there was my error in my last calculation I forgot somewhere some zeros) with a precision of 1cm If I am reaching a border of a coordinate system I increase the overlay coordinate system and set the underlying system to zero. for 10^31 I need four 32bit Variables per Axis which can be projected as one 34bit if you want (64bit contains 2,147,483,647 32bit variables)

With five 32 bit variables I would be at 10^40km range which is 10 duodecillion.

WAHHHH I just read that you americans have other number names ...
Europe 1 Sextillion = 10^36
US 1 Sextillion = 10^21
so for 20 US sextillion I just need 3 coordinate systems

although you would need a 87bit variable to store ALL subsector, sector, universe and galaxy data at once (with a live precision of 1cm for EVERY cm including if there is nothing) which is senseless because there is only one you and all other systems would be empty, you would only need this if you can see everything in all galaxies at once (in other words if you are a God you'll need 87bit at least) - instead of this we reuse the coordinate system because we only need one position for every object - 64bit would be an almost godly waste at this point.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 23, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
I just stick with 64-Bit co-ords, implement a floating origin. And go take a nap. It works* just fine; and has larger regions than any wet dream that CIG can cook up.

*

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on February 23, 2017, 06:26:18 PM
as I said before KSP is fine with a sub coordinate system and an overlay coordinate system - CIG likes BIG numbers (Big Universes, Big Ships, Big Community Managers, Big bugs)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on February 24, 2017, 06:39:31 AM
32Bit Range = 2^31 − 1 = 2,147,483,647
Positional Data: (unsigned) Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1cm Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000km Scale], Vector3(32b_X, 32b_Y, 32b_Z)[1.000.000.000.000km Scale]
Positional Data max: 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km with a precision of 1cm in all axes
this is without touching the range of floating point error because I used only half of the 32bit total range (factor 1.000.000.000)

Whoaaahhh .. triple precision that musste be double double float!!! ... no it isnt't ... it's 3times 32bit which renders to 34bit (with one 32bit value left over) NOT 64 or 128 bit ...

I hear you, but I can't quite figure out your calculation yet. Let me start with the above end result:

Our example coordinate system shall have a length of 1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000km, or 10^21 km per axis. The smallest unit of resolution shall be 1cm, so there are 10^26 units(cm) per axis (1km = 10^5cm).

In my understanding, entropy law dictates that a minimum of log2(x) storage bits will be required to represent x units in a discrete (integer) storage layout. In this case, log2(10^26) = 86.37. So at least 87 bits per axis would be needed to store every arbitrary coordinate value between 0…10^26-1 cm without loss of precision.

If we chose a floating-point storage layout, my understanding is that 10^26 = 27 "significant digits" would need to be stored in our case. Assuming the IEEE 754 floating point standard, the smallest layout which could accommodate this is quadruple-precision (128 bits, and 33 significant digits), since double-precision (64 bits) can only cope with 15 significant digits.

So at this stage I don't understand your conclusion yet that it's possible to represent 10^26 discrete values (units/cm) in 34 bits of storage, as it appears to me that it's not possible to get away with less than 87 bits. :confused: Please walk me through this part of the argument once more.

Lol guys, you should not worry too much about that, with CIG the result will always be = pizza
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 24, 2017, 01:32:13 PM


although you would need a 87bit variable to store ALL subsector, sector, universe and galaxy data at once (with a live precision of 1cm for EVERY cm including if there is nothing) which is senseless because there is only one you and all other systems would be empty, you would only need this if you can see everything in all galaxies at once (in other words if you are a God you'll need 87bit at least) - instead of this we reuse the coordinate system because we only need one position for every object - 64bit would be an almost godly waste at this point.

Ok, NOW I get it. It was the way of subdividing and reusing the coordinate system which I didn't get entirely in the first run. Thanks for clarifying!  :science:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on February 24, 2017, 01:34:54 PM
Lol guys, you should not worry too much about that, with CIG the result will always be = pizza

Agreed, I just want to make sure that I'm not seeing pineapple pizza when everyone else is talking about seafood pizza  :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 27, 2017, 05:39:55 PM
Oh yeah, yeah 6, "building a small design team" Because yeah, that's perfectly normal.

Interview with Brian Chambers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0-QE4UgR4U#t=1025s)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on February 28, 2017, 12:29:24 PM
Ah yeah, remember back when we said that the Star Citizen networking kernel was getting worse? Right, you did. So go see just how bad it really is now in 2.6.1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kP2ek_L8Yk&feature=youtu.be&t=11m13s)

(https://puu.sh/uoav4/dc61715e16.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 02, 2017, 10:39:38 AM
New Star Citizen Guide - Managing Expectations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjcPQUpahu8)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on March 02, 2017, 11:08:41 AM
Ah yeah, remember back when we said that the Star Citizen networking kernel was getting worse? Right, you did. So go see just how bad it really is now in 2.6.1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kP2ek_L8Yk&feature=youtu.be&t=11m13s)

You obviously don't understand game development. Star Citizen currently is still in alpha and the gameplay isn't optimized yet. Performance will get a lot better once the netcode is fixed, and we'll see a huge leap forward once 3.0 is released. Also, network lag has already improved a lot since they moved to Lumberyard and AWS regional servers. My guess is that the Youtube reviewer just didn't connect to the right server, probably because he doesn't understand game development either :D :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 02, 2017, 02:47:21 PM
I had written (1 (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1015#msg1015), 2 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5167071&viewfull=1#post5167071), 3 (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5168394&viewfull=1#post5168394)) about the AWS stuff before, so this post is just a placeholder so that everything is in one place for deep linking. Bookmark it. Then wait.


In the latest newsletter, regional server instances are coming in the 2.6.1 patch (due out Feb 17th (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report))

Quote
Star Citizen Newsletter - Regional Servers Inbound
February 3rd, 2017

Greetings Citizen.

Across all our studios, work on the upcoming Alpha 2.6.1 patch is progressing nicely. There’s still some UI work to complete and stability issues to iron out, but, as you can see in our updated production schedule report, we’re almost ready to get this latest patch into the players’ hands. In fact, we're happy to announce an addition to this patch. Thanks to the great work by the Live Ops, Backend and UI teams, we're moving up the release of the Regional Servers to 2.6.1, so players will be able to choose which server (North America, Europe, or Australia) they join to ensure the best connection possible. Once these are running, we’ll be able to run more tests to assess whether more locations will be needed.

This week I split my time between Foundry 42 offices in the UK and Germany. I’ll be spending another week in the trenches with the devs at Foundry 42 to oversee our advancement on a number of fronts.

Thanks to everyone who showed their support for Star Citizen last weekend at both PAX South and the community-organized Bar Citizen event in San Antonio, TX. It’s just another example of how dedicated and inspiring our fanbase can be. In fact, we’ve been looking for more ways to to bring the community front and center. That’s why this week we premiered a new show called Citizens of the Stars that focuses on the important part you play in Star Citizen. Give it a watch to see some of the incredible things the community is doing.

-- Chris Roberts

Basically, using the AWS support in LumberYard, they can do this now. They couldn't do it before with Google Compute Engine because they'd have to write an ass-ton of code to do it. Amazon has done it for them via their AWS->CryEngine->Lumberyard implementation. Which is one of the things I wrote about in my recent Irreconcilable Differences (http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/) blog in which I discuss the Lumberyard switch.

Forget about fragmentation of their already dwindling player base; the AWS cloud instances won't cost them anything if nobody is connecting to them. In fact, all it will cost them is whatever the AWS bandwidth costs to update them. And since each patch is like 40GB, well then.

What's going to be absolutely hilarious is if they don't enable (in the UI) the ability to select an AWS instance to connect to. which means that if you are in Australia and can't find players, there won't be any way to switch to US based instances which would obviously be more populated. Much rage will be heard.

This is really just another check mark in their pledge promise sheet. Only about a few hundred more to go.

Oh, and lest we forget, some of the backers are rejoicing "regional servers", while forgetting the fact that promises that Chris Roberts made about "1000 player instances" are never - ever - going to happen. And it certainly isn't going to happen with regional AWS instances. Have fun with your sub-par 16 player instances (not to be confused with the higher 24 client allowed in the shopping hub).

And if they are in fact implementing LumberYard GameLift (https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/), my reaction ---->  :laugh:



Quote
I still have no idea how 1000+ will be technically possible, but I know sod-all about game development.

And that quoted statement doesn't make a huge amount of sense, unless they're having instances ("servers") within instances ("instances") in which case it's still instanced, just called something different.

It's all rubbish tbh.

An "instance" is just a copy of the entire game. It came to be when describing a single server (hardware) running multiple copies (instances). Even a single server running a single copy of the game, is a "dedicated server instance"

And cloud servers are no different, except a GCE|AWS instance is just a software copy running on hardware servers and with no access to physical machines.

e.g. LoD runs only on hardware servers (co-lo at a data center). And we run separate "scenes" (aka levels) each with the ability to handle 1-256 clients (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/). Each server is powerful enough to handle multiple scenes. So we can run either n+1 space scenes on a server or just 1. In short, the hw server is hosting the instances.

And the way it's all connected is based on architecture we built specifically so that we could control the number of clients in each scene. So if a scene has a client cap (which is server-side configured), no more clients can connect to it until one client drops or leaves. And all scenes are connected in such a way that it all appears as one universe (though it's just 13 connected scenes stitched together with magic (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-the-game-world-divided/)). A player going from a space scene on one server to a planetary scene on another server, doesn't notice anything, as it's just an IP connection via a jump gate. And during the jump handshake, if the target server is full or off-line, the connection is rejected, you get a message - and you stay were you are and try again later.

Also, a single hw server runs a number of scene instances depending on their resource requirement e.g. space scenes don't have as much stuff as planets; so we can run 2-4 space scenes on 1 server, while running 1-2 planetary scenes on another server. Our scenes are of 3 types. space (x4), planet (x4), interiors station|capital ship (x5).

There is no gain to having 1000 clients in an instance if the performance is just going to suffer, thus yielding a horrid experience for gamers. And even if you did it, the bandwidth costs alone - especially on cloud instances - would be cost prohibitive.

When running based on an architecture like ours (http://www.lodgame.com/downloads/LOD_wide_span_global_server.jpg), not only do you get around the n+1 client issue, but player-player comms is a non-issue because it's all one universe. You can be in a scene instance (e.g. space) and communicate with someone in another instance (e.g. planet). Sure, you won't see them due to distance and location, but you can still communicate with them. And if by some fluke a 256 scene instance ends up being full, unless all of them are within a certain range bubble, the packets are priorititized based on proximity.

And we don't have the problem of "grouping with friends" because it's all one cohesive universe. No matter where or when you connect, you will always find your friends; and can join them as long as the scene they are on isn't pop-locked.

A small team of renegade indies, led by a semi-retired mad man, built this. In a span of under two years. And it just works. To the extent that, if you look at our changelog (http://lodgame.com/changelog/), we haven't messed with networking in over three years. And never underestimate the power of AI bot clients to use for load balancing and testing.



Quote
Hehe, I am generally aware of the concepts* and to be honest I'd rather that the term "Cloud" was replaced by "Someone Else's Computer" as it sounds a hell of a lot less magical.

The whole 1000+ simultaneous players thing makes no sense unless you can do some very clever peer-to-peer + view distance stuff as network traffic increases exponentially otherwise. Even if they paid for the computing horsepower, connectivity is always the bottleneck. I suppose that you could do other clever things with shuttling people between instances dependent on criteria like location/neighbouring entities/etc but that would be a nightmare to handle without lagging. All of this at a high-tick rate? yeah.. no.

*I received my BSc in Computer Science before the WWW existed (1994!) but ended up going down the corporate IT route so am not really involved in cutting edge stuff. I can still do the maths though!

It remains the Holy Grail for online connectivity in terms of twitch games. There is a reason that companies with vast resources, still rely on instanced game sessions - even MMOs.

The Planetside games which are twitch based and tout the largest number of clients in a session, still lagged - badly - when > 32 clients were in the general vicinity. And when they went for the GBWR record for the most clients connected to a session, it was unplayable. The record was about connectivity - not playability.

Eve Online - which isn't twitch based - literally invented a mass of software to host their game. And even so, when it's heavily populated in an area, they use time-dilated updates to keep every one in sync.

The only time that "1000 client instances" makes sense, is if they somehow - automagically solve the n+1 connectivity problem. Considering the clown shoes involved in the project, that's highly unlikely.  Again, we're in year 6 and they haven't progressed beyond standard networking in the original CryEngine. So there's that.

The thing with cloud servers like AWS & GCE is that you can do all kinds of nifty things. But they were never designed for the demands of twitch based games. That's why very few use them. Heck, even some of my friends working on games for Microsoft with Azure, are finding this out. See the upcoming Crackdown game.

Basically, you can't have "1000 client instances". What you can have are "1000 client sessions" via inter-instance communications. This - which is basically rocket science - means something like this:

i1(n+250) // instance + client count
i2(n+250)
i3(n+250)
i4(n+250)

Those are 4 are Amazon EC2 Dedicated Hosts (https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/dedicated-hosts/) running in Intel Xeon hardware server clusters. Also see the AMI requirement (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/AMIs.html) and what an EC2 is (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/concepts.html). You can also use the free tier (https://aws.amazon.com/free/) to test your app before jumping off a cliff and actually doing it.

This is the part where panic mode sets in. (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ebs-ec2-config.html) See those instance types, bandwidth caps etc? Yeah.

Without getting technical, with my above example you have a situation whereby they have to create 4 (or more) instances (copies) of the game.

i1 goes live, then gradually fills up with clients. As it gets filled up, because AWS charges for BOTH in/out bandwidth, the more clients, the higher the costs. It's a lot scarier than that.

i2, i3, i4, all go live - same as above.

Nobody in i1 is going to see or interact with anyone in the other instances. Even if you imagine this being a walled off garden whereby i1-client1 is parked on the edge, he will never see i2-client1. They can't see, shoot, or interact with each other. For all intent and purposes they know nothing about each other.

In order to have "1000 client" instances, you need to have 1000 clients in an instance. Which would mean 1000 clients being able to connect and interact with each other in the above. It's IMPOSSIBLE. Period. End of story. And there isn't a single Xeon hardware server on AWS which would somehow automagically spawn an instance configured for 1000 clients in a twitch based game.

If you "stitch" the instances using clever tricks, such that you have 4 instances each with 250 clients, it's no longer "1000 client" instance, but rather a "1000 client" cluster. And in order to give the illusion of 1000 clients in the world, you have to somehow come up with inter- and intra- instance communications such that, using the walled garden example above, all clients within range can somehow see, chat, engage each other.

Well guess what? Now you're in alchemy territory. You now have an instance whereby i1-client1 fires a missile at i2-client1 and that missile travels through the i1 instance, reaches an area where it is destroyed and appears (re-created) at in i2 at the location of i2-client1 <---- that fool has probably already buggered off, died etc by the time the server code figures out that i1 just fired off a missile at a target in a remote instance which may or may no longer exist.

It gets better. That missile, along with all the calculations for i1-client1 and i2-client1, need to be calculated (God help you if you aren't using server-side arbitration - which by SC isn't using) on-the-fly and in real-time. All the time. Think of the bandwidth.

Now multiply the horrendous notion above to n+1 for a set of clients.

Then plan to be on vacation when the AWS bill shows up for that month.

Here's the hilarious part. Instead of planning to build this from the start, much like Frontier did, they decided to just wing it. And now, six years later, they're still stuck with the basic CryEngine networking layer.

What is even more hilarious is that - right from the start - Chris (it's in the Kickstarter, interviews etc) claimed he wasn't making an MMO. Then, out of the Blue, he was. Suspiciously that was after it dawned on them that they would make more money by selling the entire Verse as an MMO through the sale of assets. They would never - ever - have been able to raise this much money for a single player or session based game. But the fact is, assuming they deliver (which imo they won't) both of these games, the multiplayer is going to remain as it is now. A session based instanced game which will need a witch doctor to get it to handle more than 16 (let alone 1000) clients in combat.

Further reading to see how experts who thought long and hard about this before designing it; but still ended up with a less-than stellar solution to a massive problem:

VERY basic guide for ED networking (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238233)

AWS re:Invent 2015 | (GAM403) From 0 to 60 Million Player Hours in 400B Star Systems (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvJPyjmfdz0)

This is why most of who do this stuff for a living, and with decades under our belt, simply can't fathom how they could possibly be making these FALSE statements. Especially when you consider that when this whole thing collapses, and the lawsuits start flying, these are the sort of statements that are going to end up coming back to haunt them.

ps: When it comes to Star Citizen, the claims of "1000 player instances" is pure fiction and rubbish.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on March 02, 2017, 04:00:04 PM
And don't forget what has to be communicated - every explosion, every wing that's been cut off from a spaceship (with the exact position, momentum and the spawn of the new GO), every zone behaviour (cause they interchange with each other due to latest dev chat), every physic body be it a mug in a ship or a bug on a planet and the players and the weapons and the bullets that'll be shot from one "physic grid" to another ... everything in realtime with ever changing pseudo 64bit 6DOF positional vectors.

One player in his ship in SC equals 100 Players in Planetside network data wise - well at the moment they can handle .. ermh 24 players? and only the player (ship) to be handled ... no mugs, bugs or all the other fancy stuff ...
It will be a bad day for the cult when they have to realise that all the immersion stuff is not manageable by any network/server structure in this world - let alone cloud servers ... let alone the feature packed but slow AWS cloud servers ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on March 02, 2017, 04:04:01 PM
But at the moment they are happy cause there was a company ... that works for CIG ... that has done a prototype char eye customizer ... through blendshapes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5x0b8e/star_citizen_avatar_creation_3dlateral_tech/

That means basically Chris Roberts invented Blendshapes ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 03, 2017, 09:52:28 AM
But at the moment they are happy cause there was a company ... that works for CIG ... that has done a prototype char eye customizer ... through blendshapes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5x0b8e/star_citizen_avatar_creation_3dlateral_tech/

That means basically Chris Roberts invented Blendshapes ...

Yup. It's hilarious that every time ED has them on the ropes, they pull a stunt like this. I
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 03, 2017, 04:12:43 PM
Schedule report is out (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report). Mar 23rd is the target date. :D

9 more months to 3.0 :D

Remember back when I said 3.0 didn't even exist (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5222)? So now, by end of Q1/17, backers get 2.6.2.

The biggest issue here is that croberts inadvertently set them up to fail. Right off the bat.

Once money started rolling in, the pressure to produce goes up. Then once Nov 2014 was missed (by 28 months now) - and more money came in - the pressure increased exponentially.

So of course the longer it takes, the more it costs. The more it costs, the more money they will need to raise. The game isn't finished, so they can't monetize it. So they monetize the concept and ship sales. And that in turn adds more pressure because backers then get even more nervous.

Then croberts goes on the record (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5198) and says they will need on-going funding to finish the game. And if that doesn't happen, at least they will have enough to finish SQ42. A game which isn't even close to the Star Citizen (aka PU) that backers put all this money in.

The schedule is a clear indication that the game is a long - long - way off. Which is why they dare not be truthful about it, nor release the "real" internal schedule.

Which is why this statement in the schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is patently FALSE

Quote
IV.Internal schedules, the ones you will now be privy to, tend to have aggressive dates to help the team focus and scope their tasks, especially in the case of tech development. Every team, even a team blessed with the kind of support and freedom you have allowed us, needs target dates in order to focus and deliver their work.

For the above to be true, that would mean there is no 3.0 schedule because that build doesn't exist. If it does in fact exist, why is it not in the public schedule that they're claiming backers are now "privy" to?

...then there's my recap (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg954#msg954).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on March 04, 2017, 11:24:47 AM
I recall now all those people on r/starcitizen saying that they expect 3.0 by June. I mean come on. Look at their 3.0 list of stuff. It would take them until June just to get a single one of those professions in in a basic state.
The delusion is strong.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on March 04, 2017, 04:57:18 PM
The schedule is a clear indication that the game is a long - long - way off. Which is why they dare not be truthful about it, nor release the "real" internal schedule.

Considering how many times the schedule mentions "bug fixing / polish", and how it focuses on so many petty tech details, I'm starting to doubt that the game will get much further than 2.6.2 at all.

Maybe they've decided by now that a 2.6.2 - 2.7 - 2.7.1 - 2.7.2… patch progression is most likely to carry them through 2017/2018 (with the key feature of 2.7 being the least complex 3.0 item which can be thrown together in a superficially working state, and later updates to that feature plus new ship concepts to keep backers at bay). Regarding how to proceed beyond that, they've probably agreed to cross the bridge when they get there in 2019.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 05, 2017, 05:41:17 AM
The schedule is a clear indication that the game is a long - long - way off. Which is why they dare not be truthful about it, nor release the "real" internal schedule.

Considering how many times the schedule mentions "bug fixing / polish", and how it focuses on so many petty tech details, I'm starting to doubt that the game will get much further than 2.6.2 at all.

Maybe they've decided by now that a 2.6.2 - 2.7 - 2.7.1 - 2.7.2… patch progression is most likely to carry them through 2017/2018 (with the key feature of 2.7 being the least complex 3.0 item which can be thrown together in a superficially working state, and later updates to that feature plus new ship concepts to keep backers at bay). Regarding how to proceed beyond that, they've probably agreed to cross the bridge when they get there in 2019.

Yeah, that's my thinking as well. But lets face it; they can brand any build as 3.0, seeing as they don't tend keep to any of their milestone descriptions anyway. To wit: network bind culling and others from 2.6.0 are now no longer in the schedule.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on March 06, 2017, 05:46:09 AM
Beer4TheBeerGod posted some interesting Star Marine stats

Quote
Star Citizen 2.6.1 was released on February 18th, so conservatively 14 days ago. Only 5 players have more than 28 hours played of Last Man, and no player has more than 28 hours played of Elimination. Only 43 players have played more than 14 hours of either game mode.

Star Marine is dead.

...meanwhile, over there (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5xm15v/remember_where_we_started_and_look_where_were/dejemlc/)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on March 24, 2017, 04:46:31 PM

Wait a moment ... they are using flowgraphs to create their game???
I can understand using flowgraphs for macro stuff like AI behaviour or Shader but ... game mechanics? This is valid for Tetronimo games but complex stuff will fuck up your flowgraph to a mess in no time ...

Well on the other hand it could be just a show off for the compentence level of their programmers flowgraph designers ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on March 26, 2017, 05:49:49 AM
[...] complex stuff will fuck up your flowgraph to a mess in no time ... [...]


Indeed; But we're talking about Star Citizen here  :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on April 01, 2017, 09:48:45 AM
Haha, I can't help but think that this is Newegg throwin' some collateral shade at Star Citizen

https://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/17-2173/index.html
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 02, 2017, 08:47:43 AM
Haha, I can't help but think that this is Newegg throwin' some collateral shade at Star Citizen

https://promotions.newegg.com/nepro/17-2173/index.html

Yeah, that was hilarious.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 02, 2017, 09:06:14 AM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on April 02, 2017, 12:23:11 PM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

This is the thing that really burns me about this project.  Not only is it a scam, it's an open-faced scam, on par with Scientology, and they're showing an incredible amount of contempt for their backers.  It's almost as if they're trying to shove it in the faces of other publishers and developers just how far they can go and still have their base of devoted backers, whereas real developers have to treat their customers with a modicum of respect.

It's insulting to their backers, and it's insulting to the industry in general.  Really it's an insult to anyone who actually works for a living.  Nothing that happens to Chris after this is too much.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Phraccy on April 03, 2017, 03:09:29 AM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

true, but to be fair....that was just the last iteration of the PTU build. 2.6.2 went to PTU on Tuesday IIRC. Buat anyway, I agree that they pushed it out just to prove a point .... Really feel sorry for all the backers still hoping for that awesomesauce patch 3.0 that will magically fix everything...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 03, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

true, but to be fair....that was just the last iteration of the PTU build. 2.6.2 went to PTU on Tuesday IIRC. Buat anyway, I agree that they pushed it out just to prove a point .... Really feel sorry for all the backers still hoping for that awesomesauce patch 3.0 that will magically fix everything...

Yes it was; and that was my point. These bugs were already known in that PTU build; but they pushed it live anyway.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 03, 2017, 11:11:45 AM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

true, but to be fair....that was just the last iteration of the PTU build. 2.6.2 went to PTU on Tuesday IIRC. Buat anyway, I agree that they pushed it out just to prove a point .... Really feel sorry for all the backers still hoping for that awesomesauce patch 3.0 that will magically fix everything...

Yes it was; and that was my point. These bugs were already known in that PTU build; but they pushed it live anyway.

"You couldn't get away with releasing a buggy game in the cartridge and cassette days; you'd be sentenced to trampling by the company brontosaurus." --Ben 'Yahtzee' Croshaw, during his STALKER: Clear Sky review.

I skimmed the Reddit thread, my personal favorite was 'Well, it's still in Alpha...'

Really? How long has this game been in development and in Alpha? By the holy Nolan Bushnell himself, I have Early Access games in my Steam library that are more coherent and 'complete' (even though they're still 'under development').
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 05, 2017, 03:59:30 PM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

As I hilariously predicted from the rushed 2.6.2 patch, they've now pushed an "out of band" 2.6.3 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/alpha-2-6-2-ptu-status-evocati-testing) patch to Evocati.

It's as if they rushed 2.6.2 out in time for the latest (failing) Drake ship sale (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=53.msg1329#msg1329). No, that couldn't possibly be it.

Patch notes

Quote
Star Citizen Patch 2.6.3
Welcome to Alpha PTU 2.6.3! This patch is primarily dedicated to bug fixes, with continued focus on stability and game performance!
During this initial testing phase, PTU access will be restricted to a small group of players that we will expand on over time as required. Your launcher should show “2.6.3-523117” as the client version. It is strongly recommended that players delete their USER folder for the Test client after patching, particularly if you start encountering any odd character graphical issues or crash on loading. The USER folder can be found (in default installations) at C:\Program Files\Cloud Imperium Games\StarCitizen\Test.
Please review our current list of Patch 2.6.3 Known Issues, and take full advantage of our Issue Council area of the Community site to report any bugs you encounter, as well as contribute to other players submissions.

Important Issues:
No issues to report!

Updates and Fixes

Star Systems:
Crusader
Fixed another issue causing the ASOP terminals to state “All pads are full” in error.

Game Systems:
Star Marine
Fixed an issue where players who stayed in their spawn rooms at the end of round 2 should no longer see themselves die at the beginning of round 3. Fixed several collision and environmental issues found within Echo Eleven.

Technical:
Fixed a number of client crashes. Made a number of performance tweaks to Echo Eleven and OP Station Demien.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 07, 2017, 01:41:05 PM
They're well on the way (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha/SC-40231-Causing_server_lag_and_fps_drops_crash_) to 1000 client instances



Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 08, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
So they rushed 2.6.2 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15807-Star-Citizen-Alpha-262-Is-LIVE) out just so they could say they met the Mar deadline. It's broke AF (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/62tavs/262_poor_work/). Over 150+ bugs (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha?sort=newest&pagesize=25&page=6) logged so far.

Hilariously, they pushed it live 3hrs after it went to the PTU.  :supaburn:

As I hilariously predicted from the rushed 2.6.2 patch, they've now pushed an "out of band" 2.6.3 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/alpha-2-6-2-ptu-status-evocati-testing) patch to Evocati.

It's as if they rushed 2.6.2 out in time for the latest (failing) Drake ship sale (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=53.msg1329#msg1329). No, that couldn't possibly be it.

Patch notes

Quote
Star Citizen Patch 2.6.3
Welcome to Alpha PTU 2.6.3! This patch is primarily dedicated to bug fixes, with continued focus on stability and game performance!
During this initial testing phase, PTU access will be restricted to a small group of players that we will expand on over time as required. Your launcher should show “2.6.3-523117” as the client version. It is strongly recommended that players delete their USER folder for the Test client after patching, particularly if you start encountering any odd character graphical issues or crash on loading. The USER folder can be found (in default installations) at C:\Program Files\Cloud Imperium Games\StarCitizen\Test.
Please review our current list of Patch 2.6.3 Known Issues, and take full advantage of our Issue Council area of the Community site to report any bugs you encounter, as well as contribute to other players submissions.

Important Issues:
No issues to report!

Updates and Fixes

Star Systems:
Crusader
Fixed another issue causing the ASOP terminals to state “All pads are full” in error.

Game Systems:
Star Marine
Fixed an issue where players who stayed in their spawn rooms at the end of round 2 should no longer see themselves die at the beginning of round 3. Fixed several collision and environmental issues found within Echo Eleven.

Technical:
Fixed a number of client crashes. Made a number of performance tweaks to Echo Eleven and OP Station Demien.

Totally called it. 2.6.3 is live (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/star-citizen-alpha-2-6-3-publish-to-live). Next up, 2.6.4
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 10, 2017, 10:09:21 AM
Their obvious 2.6.3 fix to the "full launch pads" bugs, created a problem (ships spawning inside other ships) being experienced by a lot of people

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on April 10, 2017, 11:42:24 AM
Their obvious 2.6.3 fix to the "full launch pads" bugs, created a problem (ships spawning inside other ships) being experienced by a lot of people


lol 2.6.3  :laugh: :laugh: . I understand cig is trying to buy as much time as possible but i cant understand why people are even bothered to download these 25 gb updates that are adding nothing new ...lol 25 gb for minor bug fixes...sue me :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on April 10, 2017, 11:45:57 AM
and i am sure as soon as they drop whatever they are now calling 3.0 , moron whales will go mad and will start throwing money at cig as always. and plz derek find out what cig is paying boredgamer, his lies and deception are at its peak. :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 10, 2017, 04:09:41 PM
and i am sure as soon as they drop whatever they are now calling 3.0 , moron whales will go mad and will start throwing money at cig as always. and plz derek find out what cig is paying boredgamer, his lies and deception are at its peak. :laugh:

I have no reason to believe that they will get to 3.0. At least not a version that contains what they've been promising for almost a year now.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 18, 2017, 01:14:00 PM
Inspired by Trump tracker, Goons have a Star Citizen Tracker (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/). eye-opening to wee what's missing after 146m + 6 yrs
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 18, 2017, 01:35:52 PM
one year ago today StarCitizen CEO announces not all stretch goals will be in the commercial release (https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4ff0dl/starcitizen_ceo_announces_not_all_stretch_goals/).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 19, 2017, 05:27:47 PM
6 years of lies + $146 million + 500 people. This is what backers are going to be left with before long.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 22, 2017, 06:12:59 AM
BOOM!! Called it! And so the 3.0 "walk back" begins in ernest. By the time it's released, it will be what 2.7 should have been.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/66ux3c/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170421/

Quote
The major change this week in 3.0.0 is the delay of the network bind / unbind, which is now schedule AFTER the 3.0.0 release. Since it's a stetch goal, I think it's safe to say it probably won't be met, and therefore not included in 3.0.0. This has important implications, since it's the component responsible for improving dramatically the FPS by reducing the amount of useless data each client has to process.

Another big change is the volumetric fog, which has been delayed by 25 days. But it's still far from being a problem, since it was scheduled very early.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

I like how the oft-delayed network revision - the core of the engine - is now an imaginary "stretch goal". wat!?

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on April 22, 2017, 08:39:48 AM
I like how the oft-delayed network revision - the core of the engine - is now an imaginary "stretch goal". wat!?
My goodness. For months we've been hearing how pivotal "3.0" and the "fixed netcode" would be for the development of the game, both terms being used as standard boilerplate to counter virtually any complaint one could have about bugs or missing features in the current state. Once the netcode was fixed, poof, the game would be able to run a shit ton of instances lag free, capital ships and multi-crew would become possible, and everything else would finally come together as well.

And now, "over there" the cultists are already starting to revise history, claiming that "3.0" never was a big deal in the first place, and that the "fixed netcode" wasn't planned to be part of it yet anyway, let alone the need to "rewrite the netcode from scratch" which until recently was the common understanding.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 22, 2017, 12:40:32 PM
And now, "over there" the cultists are already starting to revise history, claiming that "3.0" never was a big deal in the first place, and that the "fixed netcode" wasn't planned to be part of it yet anyway, let alone the need to "rewrite the netcode from scratch" which until recently was the common understanding.

Yeah, it's amazing to watch those ass-clowns revise history. Just wait for what comes next. It's amazing.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on April 22, 2017, 05:59:13 PM
They still don't get that it is their MVP.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 23, 2017, 08:53:22 AM
They still don't get that it is their MVP.

No, they really don't.

They already started removing items from 3.0 schedule (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/66ux3c/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170421/), even though it's not even one week old yet. They did the same thing when they rushed 2.6.0 out last Christmas after croberts was saying 3.0 was coming before Dec 19th, 2016. Then right up to the recently released 2.6.3, they had removed several critical items. So what should've been 2.7, ended up now being 3.0 which doesn't even contain 25% of what was promised (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5238) to be in 3.0 - last Aug 2016.

I believe that 3.0, whatever ends up in it, is the MVP that croberts has been threatening for over a year now. They have not only run out of time and money, but key people have left, are leaving, and sources tell me there are several more on the way out because they've started trimming the four (!) studios around the world due to dwindling finances. Which explains the latest referral cash grab which the community (this is a 4K upvoted Reddit thread on that (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/66qrlc/cig_your_marketing_is_too_far_ahead_of_itself/)) has been revolting against.

And if you haven't yet got wind of the latest Hello Kitty fiasco and referral system (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5254); it's truly hilarious.

When you think about what happened to the Lily drone and similar projects, whereby State/Fed officials had to get involved because they were a public concern, that's precisely what I see happening in the end. Especially since most of the execs involved have been involved in similar ventures here and overseas, and which led to failure and loss of investor money. It's all very well documented as I wrote here last month (http://dereksmart.com/2017/03/star-citizen-money-laundromat/).

As to the 3.0 planets (there aren't any), just as I predicted some months back (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4725), sources are telling me that the reason they can't do planets, only moons and asteroids which can be placed in the space scenes like stations, is because they simply can't get it to work. Let alone have entire planetary bodies which support seamless space<->planetary transitions as they've been promising. And even placing these moons in the scene, ends up in a major performance issue; not to mention networking problems.

Let's not forget that, now in Summer 2017, 6 years and almost $150 million later, assuming they do release a 3.0 with these moons, they still haven't completed 1 of the 110 systems (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/) they promised for the game. All of which contain stations, planets, moons, asteroid fields etc. This is the game's star map (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap). Not even 1% of that is built.

I get that some backers have hope; but between the reputation management accounts being created all over the place, the fake Star Citizen "reviews/previews" by sites nobody ever heard of, all they're doing is one massive disinformation campaign. And the toxic backers (who were mobilized by actions taken by CIG themselves (http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/star-citizen-how-i-got-involved/) these past years) who are waging an Internet wide war against dissent, some of whom we believe to be actively engaged in money laundering via the Grey market, have just made things a whole lot worse; and that has completely tainted the project.

As I said back in July 2015 when I wrote that first blog, these past two years, I haven't seen anything that has swayed my opinion that either of these games will ever see the light of day as promised.

When I backed this game in Nov 2012, never in my wildest dreams, did I think that it would come to this. It's all just so very sad.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on April 23, 2017, 09:32:02 AM
Let's not forget that, now in Summer 2017, 6 years and almost $150 million later, assuming they do release a 3.0 with these moons, they still haven't completed 1 of the 110 systems (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/) they promised for the game. All of which contain stations, planets, moons, asteroid fields etc. This is the game's star map (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap). Not even 1% of that is built.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/672z98/how_can_the_possibly_make_all_those_planets_for/

Even now, some backers still believe that once the Miracle Tool (aka "SolEd", wtf?) has been crafted, entire systems can be put together with "copy/paste", and that it will only take a day to make a planet. Let's forget for a moment that in a different saga, an Entity much more resourceful than CIG had to put in an entire 7 day week to make that work… but then again, not everyone understands game development  :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 23, 2017, 10:32:01 AM
Some of these Star Citizen backers are completely broken (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/672kdd/lol_i_think_i_prayed_for_star_citizen_last_night/)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HRr54XUAAgcYU.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 23, 2017, 10:35:29 AM
Let's not forget that, now in Summer 2017, 6 years and almost $150 million later, assuming they do release a 3.0 with these moons, they still haven't completed 1 of the 110 systems (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/) they promised for the game. All of which contain stations, planets, moons, asteroid fields etc. This is the game's star map (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap). Not even 1% of that is built.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/672z98/how_can_the_possibly_make_all_those_planets_for/

Even now, some backers still believe that once the Miracle Tool (aka "SolEd", wtf?) has been crafted, entire systems can be put together with "copy/paste", and that it will only take a day to make a planet. Let's forget for a moment that in a different saga, an Entity much more resourceful than CIG had to put in an entire 7 day week to make that work… but then again, not everyone understands game development  :D

They're morons.

Looks like whoever created that thread, saw me tweet a link (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/856176117614596097) to my post earlier today.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on April 23, 2017, 01:11:09 PM
Some of these Star Citizen backers are completely broken (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/672kdd/lol_i_think_i_prayed_for_star_citizen_last_night/)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HRr54XUAAgcYU.jpg)

Needs modifying for Star Citizen


(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d6/46/bb/d646bbee10b9579ae799ad7cde5ba18a.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: J How on April 23, 2017, 03:23:24 PM
At this point I doubt if SC 3.0 failed or if 2.7 failed (not sure what they'll call it), I have changed my mind based on what has been posted on /r/dereksmart and /r/starcitizen

Difficulty with Citizens who are frequent visitors to reddit, they are too far gone to notice. The white knights and the sub groups is they will not accept the MVP hasn't been delivered. No matter what is put out, the "fans" will lap it up and spend more money on SC.

Is it long term sustainable? Doubt it

For the time being, the "fans" will be those who realise new backers are either not forthcoming, or just not spending money on the project. The hardline "fans" will then put down more money on Star Citizen or potentially create new accounts to "support" the project.

The difficulty normal (non SC fans) when seeing their posts is that,
A) The negativity - any criticism is immediately Derek Smart or Goons
B) They see the SC reddit and just back away naturally
C) See the comments on SC reddit and decide not to partake in the community at large (bad for new players as the manual is hardly up to scratch)
D) Get into the community and realise how toxic it is (not talking all SC fans, a minority is toxic but brings the whole group down)
E) Look at the RSI website and look at the cost of the larger packages (although the site is hardly clear at the moment)
F) SC mentions is pcgaming or any games journalist site (positive or negative) are like giant magnets for both sides of the argument and you can't have a rational conversation there, on either side - not talking goons either (those shouting block capitals SCAM)

Without going in to things which need to be proven (funding tracker being false, paid reddit posts, etc) already it's hardly opening with arms welcome to new players. The more SC appears to fail, the more the "fans" believe it is succeeding. Not getting in to the topic of how badly it is failing and behind schedule, think they are going to go all out and cause havoc if the new version drops - and some are not happy with it.

If SC 3.0 or 2.7 is bad, then rather than blame CIG, they will blame Derek Smart and Goons. How far they will go (usual death threats, attempted DOXing, lies, swatting, turning up at people's houses) at this point i would not put anything past them, again to me some do seem to have clear and genuine mental health issues. With the money being dropped into SC I'm concerned that we will have "fans" doing some extreme things to support the game, can't say what for sure but I do see it happening.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on April 23, 2017, 03:33:19 PM
Needs modifying for Star Citizen

(http://i.imgur.com/zcNjPmS.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on April 23, 2017, 03:49:42 PM
Needs modifying for Star Citizen

(http://i.imgur.com/zcNjPmS.jpg)
Perfect..
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 24, 2017, 05:38:42 AM
If SC 3.0 or 2.7 is bad, then rather than blame CIG, they will blame Derek Smart and Goons. How far they will go (usual death threats, attempted DOXing, lies, swatting, turning up at people's houses) at this point i would not put anything past them, again to me some do seem to have clear and genuine mental health issues. With the money being dropped into SC I'm concerned that we will have "fans" doing some extreme things to support the game, can't say what for sure but I do see it happening.

They won't do shit. These are cowardly fuck ups in the dregs of society who talk big on the Internet. The project will die, and when it does, that's all they're going to be doing: talking. They will find a way to hand wave it all away, some will find a way to justify it, someone to blame etc, while others will never admit that they were played for suckers. Instead, they will be writing about how trying and failing to do something is OK, that they were along for the ride, that they knew it stood a chance of failure etc.

At the end of the day, none of that will change anything. When the project fails, we all lose because this project, and the money raised around it, was a once in a lifetime thing which I can say with certainty, will never happen again in gaming. No matter whose side someone happens to be on, we all - as games - end up losing anyway.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 24, 2017, 07:29:50 AM
Star Citizen. All the pipes

(https://starcitizen.tools/images/2/2b/Ship_Pipeline_full.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 24, 2017, 08:06:34 AM
6 years + $150 million (of other peoples money) + 500 team = visual fidelity of pooping in your space suit.

https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound (https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on April 24, 2017, 09:34:47 AM
6 years + $150 million (of other peoples money) + 500 team = visual fidelity of pooping in your space suit.

https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound (https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound)

 :wtchris:

Eight zillion videos of people shooting REAL GUNS on Youtube, and they cranked THIS out?

Jerry Miculek doesn't make those faces. Hell, FPSRussia doesn't make those faces.

 :black101:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on April 25, 2017, 08:36:40 AM
6 years + $150 million (of other peoples money) + 500 team = visual fidelity of pooping in your space suit.

https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound (https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound)

He looks like he is trying to pass a particularly hard stool, not firing a gun.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 25, 2017, 12:17:29 PM
From VirtualCaptain (the maintainer)


https://starcitizentracker.github.io/ (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/) has a few new visual enhancements. Added fidelity if you will.

Probably the most useful is percentages of each status:

(http://i.imgur.com/qkJ2O7u.png)

The original list comes from SC wikia (http://starcitizen.wikia.com/wiki/Development_promises), and has promise dates for prettymuch everything now. The page needs dates to tell if something is stagnant or a more recent promise.

I really did not anticipate doing this much data entry myself but even the totally open google doc got barely a handful of edits; probably half of which were just people messing around with the sorting.

The good news is once each promise has a approximate date and an optional link, I don't expect much to change very fast. CIG being themselves.

The bad news is there is still about 2 years of 10 for the chairman promises to consider. Thankfully the summaries on http://scqa.info/ (http://scqa.info/) make that much easier than watching the videos.



Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 27, 2017, 08:28:15 AM
Star Citizen is selling features and dreams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP9tMVSqxuE&feature=youtu.be&t=8m22s)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Karmic Cake on April 27, 2017, 10:54:26 AM
6 years + $150 million (of other peoples money) + 500 team = visual fidelity of pooping in your space suit.

https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound (https://gfycat.com/FlickeringDefensiveBluetickcoonhound)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

(http://i.imgur.com/mo1Kf5w.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on April 28, 2017, 04:42:31 AM
Meanwhile, over on FDev... (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=5449925&viewfull=1#post5449925)

Some gifs of the ATV(From reddit obviously):

ATV - Preview of 3.0 moons
https://gfycat.com/PoliticalMiniatureDrafthorse (https://gfycat.com/PoliticalMiniatureDrafthorse)

"From Plant to Planet" (But that's Yela so is a moon)
https://gfycat.com/DimpledCelebratedAsiansmallclawedotter (https://gfycat.com/DimpledCelebratedAsiansmallclawedotter)

Everything looks great in the CryEngine editor; and we've seen stuff like this (who remembers Nyx?) before. Once they get it running in the client; and it's not #justanotherlevel, I'd be impressed.

Also, it's easy to see why they chose to do moons first, instead of planets. Based on the amount of work, not to mention performance issues, moons don't require that much. So basically, six years later, they are where ED and all my games were - years ago.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 02, 2017, 09:43:36 AM
Hey who remembers the "1000s of players in a networking instance" claim from CitizenCon? And which was supposedly coming (it's not) in 3.0 (last year)? I wrote about it in a follow-up comment (http://dereksmart.com/2016/10/star-citizen-shattered-dreams/#comment-3719) in my Shattered Dreams blog.

Refresher course. Watch from 20:00 - 24:00


The Star Citizen Exclusive Interview: Erin Roberts (http://wccftech.com/star-citizen-exclusive-interview-erin-roberts/) (transcript (https://relay.sc/transcript/reverse-the-verse-special-edition))

Quote
"So with the next big release a lot of the underlying game is there and then we can look at transferring people between servers so we can have hundreds of thousands of people maybe in one instance, but that doesn’t come online until later."

HINT: It's not happening.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 02, 2017, 06:29:28 PM
The geezer two to the right of Roberts is the geezer that is responsible for the PU isn't he ?   

He isn't looking overly excited about what Croberts is saying about those thousands of people. 

He looks decidedly ill.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 04, 2017, 07:59:20 AM
The geezer two to the right of Roberts is the geezer that is responsible for the PU isn't he ?   

He isn't looking overly excited about what Croberts is saying about those thousands of people. 

He looks decidedly ill.

Yeah, Tony Zurovek is in the Green jacket. He's croberts' old buddy from decades back on similar failed projects.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 05, 2017, 06:17:09 AM
Wow! Now you see the difference between cutscene bullshot and in-game. This video clip from last night's AtV shows Mark then and now.

They used a high quality in-game render to show off SQ42 back in 2015m, without disclosing that, and making backers think that was the game quality. Par for the course I guess. So basically, two years later, there's reduced fidelity. To me, that explains why they aren't showing any actual SQ42 footage or shots - for two years now.

(http://i.imgur.com/lnZPHmY.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 05, 2017, 11:47:14 AM
Latest GamesBeat interview. So much for Shitizens excuse for the game taking long because Chris is a perfectionist and wants it out when it good to go.

https://clips.twitch.tv/SpinelessTenaciousCobraPipeHype
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 09, 2017, 01:30:29 PM
Remember when I wrote got into an argument with Ben Parry over in F42-UK (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=5.msg738#msg738) about the LumberYard engine switch? Then I wrote a whole blog, Irreconcilable Differences (http://www.dereksmart.com/2016/12/star-citizen-irreconcilable-differences/), explaining why they were lying about how "easy" it was?

Right.

Well, the folks at Amazon are on the LumberYard anniversary interview circuit. The latest one appears on GIB (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-05-05-amazon-lumberyard-one-year-on).

Quote
"CryEngine was a starting point," Frazzini explains. "At this point, over 50% of the code in Lumberyard is written by Amazon engineers. We don't have an active commercial or strategic relationship with Crytek. We wish them the best, but where they go from here is entirely separate and different from anything we're doing with Lumberyard."

So CIG switched to LumberYard in late 2016. Even though in the current 2.6x patch, most of the core LumberYard specific files (if you have the LY sdk, you know what to look for) don't exist in the distribution, other than the AWS stuff - which they use because of LY abstraction and core level support, making it possible.

As I had suspected and written, they are basically switching - wholesale - from StarEngine (their own CryEngine custom engine) to LumberYard, while retaining whatever mods (e.g. UI, scene management) to CryEngine 3.x Actual.

Yes, if you were wondering, Chris obviously lied (https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/364217). Again.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 09, 2017, 02:39:06 PM
Let's save this theory-crafting compilation for the 3.0 "planets". We'll need it later for the epic lols.


Wait till these guys find out that they're getting a moon/asteroid object (like bases) in the same scene - with no atmosphere or "seamless" transition.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 12, 2017, 02:09:36 PM
New schedule:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report)

Diff report (one month):

https://www.diffchecker.com/n6acsRz1 (https://www.diffchecker.com/n6acsRz1)

My sources were right about more cuts. Levski is out of Evocati & PTU as it was moved from June 1st to June 30th

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/862688996035637248 (https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/862688996035637248)

Oh, here is the updated newsletter (http://mailchi.mp/cloudimperiumgames/meet-the-defender-of-the-banu-140369?e=c733d8e2e6) talking about new concept ship sale coming May 19th (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/spaceship-prices/163995) for $275

And they're going to be skimming an additional $5 off the top of CCU accounts (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ship-upgrades) now. Wait until those people who have cheap $30 ships with LTI (for CCU down the road), find out they have to pay $5 more to upgrade. LOL!!

But don't worry though; this is totally not a scam; and according to those guys on Reddit, they have about $85 million in the bank :D :D :D

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_qBGsgXcAEkVre.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 12, 2017, 03:33:08 PM
They are so close to that in game economy that those unused CCUs are hurting real bad !
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 13, 2017, 06:57:53 AM
The recently unveiled female character model from a $148 million "game"

(https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/3fyylmprxutl6r/source/Medical_rep.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on May 13, 2017, 12:40:14 PM
The recently unveiled female character model from a $148 million "game"

I see what Sandi did there :golfclap:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 15, 2017, 12:26:11 PM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/864185416232177664

Well, they've given croberts more of the worst news ever. He can't have "seamless" space<->planet transitions because the engine can't do it. I had reported before that 3.0 (which now has moons, not planets) was just another level (like the current ones) in which they place the moon object in the scene like a station.

Who remembers this? FF to 12:48

10 for the Chairman: Episode 70, Nov 16, 2015

Quote
We don’t have planetary landing we have landings on various space stations then we have three main space stations and six or seven communication satellites scattered around the Crusade gas giant. We’re not going to have the planetary landings this year. It will be next year. It will definitely be like the CitizenCon we saw in 2014 but probably much better.

This is what he was saying it would better than.

Star Citizen CitizenCon 2014 Persistent Universe Demo, Oct 13, 2014

And this the R&D tech demo from CitizenCon 2016

Star Citizen: Procedural Planets v2, Oct 11, 2016

Chris Roberts Reddit AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12grru/i_am_chris_roberts_creator_of_wing_commander/c6uxth9/), Nov 1st, 2012
Quote
"You wont be able to seamlessly land on a planet from free flight (but we will have a nice in engine cinematic that feels fairly seamless).
Planets are really your "save" points and where you go to trade, upgrade your ship and get missions / hear gossip of profitable trade runs or pirating opportunities
"


Word is they still can't do seamless anything.

What is this "seamless transition" nonsense anyway?

- start off in your wan...erm, space pod
- requisition your space chariot
- enter space chariot
- plot a course for the moon|planet you see in the map
- jump/fly to spherical object representing the moon|planet
- fly ahead as you enter the sphere, you breach the atmosphere and enter the moon|planet. no cut scene
- land space chariot, exit. do stuff
- to leave, enter space chariot, go vertical, reach escape velocity, breach atmosphere, end up in space

To see this in action:

- watch any movie from ED; though they only have some moons and planetoids which you can land on
- watch any movie from Battlespace Infinity (it took them forever to get it done right btw)
- watch any movie from Universal Combat. Though I cheat (to cut down on the transition time) somewhat by using an external camera transition when the moon|planet gravity grabs the ship

To have a truly seamless transition, you need a scene manager that is capable of handling not just the objects (planets, moons, stations, players, asteroid fields etc) in the space but also stuff inside them. In the case of stations, those are the internal hand-crafted levels; which is how you can land your chariot at a station, then enter it in fps.

Even though they've been touting "procedural planets" since last year, and then changed it to moons for 3.0, they are only apparently able to add moon/asteroid objects in the scene like they do stations. This will allow you to land on them like you would a station.

Apparently what you saw at CitizenCon 2016, even though they've come out and said it was R&D anyway, isn't actually working for a production client/server build. That's why they switched to moons since they are smaller, mostly rock, don't need that much detail to look interesting etc. Basically, they're doing what ED, LoD, COD:IW, ME:A et al are doing. Except that ED doesn't yet have space legs. And even they are having problems ranging from collision detect (you can fall right through the world) issues, popping, bland assets - and nothing to do. Yet, they are saying all of this is coming in mid July. Why it's not surprising that they've starting cutting stuff from 3.0 and deferring it. Which is not an issue in itself, since that happens all the time. The issue is that, once again, it's mid-2017 by the time 3.0 comes out, and sources are saying it's not going to be much progress; and certainly not what backers are thinking is coming.

I wrote this missive back (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/5220/) in Feb this year, about ALL THE PROCEDURAL PLANETS PROMISES TO DATE

ps: Line Of Defense does not have seamless space<->planetary transitions because 1) the bases on the planets are all handcrafted 2) they needed to be separate so that our networking tech can better handle "per scene" updates, and thus be able to handle a large number of players. Mass Effect: Adromeda also does it this way.

Remember this nonsense?

Chris Roberts on Star Citizen's Procedural Planets, Alpha 3.0, & CitizenCon (http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2613-chris-roberts-on-star-citizen-procedural-planets-alpha3-citizencon), September 24, 2016

Chris Roberts on Character Tech, Weather System, & Engine Architecture (http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2617-chris-roberts-on-character-technology-weather-system-engine-arch), September 24, 2016

Roberts: Star Citizen Is Now ‘Best Damn Everything Simulation (http://wccftech.com/roberts-star-citizen-best-damn-simulation/), Sep 27, 2016



***UPDATE - [05-16-17]***

I am getting questions about the difference between seamless and non-seamless. So let me try and explain my thoughts from a layman's perspective.

SEAMLESS TRANSITION

The planet sphere has its own ecosystem, with weather, skies, atmosphere etc. You can see it from space, and when you fly into it, you smoothly go from space to planet, and there is no cut-scene or interruption.

When you are on the surface, depending on where you are, and based on the engine (performance issues, culling etc), you should be able to see objects (e.g. station, moon, planets) in space from the planet.

This is how the upcoming Battlescape Infinity does it.

Evochron, another old game also did something similar.

My Universal Combat games also have it seamless but they use an external camera transition during the switch from space to planet and vice versa. Similar to the jump sequence, I added the camera to cut down on the time it takes to go from space to the planet surface. You can see the craft and planet in the view as it flies (with entry burn visual effects) toward the planet (all the moons and planets are procedural generated). In the game, you can select exactly where you want to enter the planet. But if you don't have an entry point selected in the Tacops computer, the engine picks one based on your direction of entry to the planet sphere. You can see it in this video (https://vimeo.com/147947830) which shows this. FF to 15:00. The only entities that are rendered in the night sky when you are on the planet, are the stars (using real time world position data btw). The engine doesn't render anything else for performance reasons.

The GALCOM Echo Squad game does it the same way because it uses the same game engine.

NON-SEAMLESS TRANSITION

Line Of Defense uses a standard loading screen (with a progress bar) after you select one of the planet bases via the jump gate map. It works the same way if you jump from a station in space to the planet using an HAIS flight suit. The engine doesn't render anything in space as seen from the planet surface. The sky, day & night transitions, atmosphere, weather (http://lodgame.com/mediapage/) etc are all powered by our custom (we use it to render the actual moons (http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-09-02-06.jpg) in a separate context as seen in the sky) version of Silverlining middleware. The water is powered (http://lodgame.com/galleries/14-10-30/) by our custom version of Triton middleware. Basically, each of the 4 planetary bases, 4 space scenes are all hand-crafted in our editor in exactly the same way that we handle the 4 stations and 1 carrier. They are all individual levels, linked by jump gates and such to make it look like one large cohesive game world (http://lodgame.com/world-line-defense/). Sure we could put all 13 scenes in one big scene because we don't have that whole "64-Bit problem", but that would not only impact performance, but will also be too big a world for the number of players we're targeting. It would also not allow us to control the scene population which our networking tech (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-is-the-game-world-divided/) was designed to help us have control over.

Mass Effect Andromeda uses a cut-scene with a very long loading time, after which you are over the base that the mission calls for.

COD:IW does it the same way as the above I believe.

STAR CITIZEN

Back in 2012, Chris was going to do it the same standard way as LOD, ME:A, COD:IW etc because that's how the CryEngine, and most engines, were designed to handle such scenes. Like Battlescape, Evochron, Universal Combat, we were able to do seamless because 1) we have procedural worlds 2) we have custom engines designed from the ground up for that.

This is what he said back in Nov 2012 (https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12grru/i_am_chris_roberts_creator_of_wing_commander/c6uxth9/) after they had raised a little over $2m.

Quote
You wont be able to seamlessly land on a planet from free flight (but we will have a nice in engine cinematic that feels fairly seamless). Planets are really your "save" points and where you go to trade, upgrade your ship and get missions / hear gossip of profitable trade runs or pirating opportunities

The $41m stretch goal (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13783-Letter-From-The-Chairman-41-Million) which they reached around Mar 31st, 2014, was the first time that procedural planet generation was mentioned. From the chairman's letter he states:

Quote
I’m incredibly happy to hit this goal as it green-lights a very important research project aimed at **improving Star Citizen’s long term future**. With this funding, we’ll be **looking into procedural generation** to help build the universe out in a greater detail and scope **in ways we didn’t think possible when we started developing the game**! We will have some exciting **announcements to make down the line** involving some of the talent we’ve been talking to about helping us with procedural system and planet building.

Procedural Generation R&D Team – This stretch goal will allocate funding for Cloud Imperium to develop procedural generation technology for future iterations of Star Citizen. Advanced procedural generation will be necessary for creating entire planets worth of exploration and development content. A special strike team of procedural generation-oriented developers will be assembled to make this technology a reality.

From the CitizenCon 2016 presentation, they had an R&D showcase which backers were led to believe is what was actually coming in the game client. That set the stage for backer anticipation for 3.0 because it seemed to represent a major milestone in the project. We come to later find out that it was R&D and not indicative of the game client. That 2016 presentation showed what appears to be a seamless space to planet transition, though most people later noticed the glitch (not just in the sandworm) in the scripted sequence

Months later, they went from planet to moons instead for 3.0. We still don't know why, but the speculation is that moons are barren and easier to populate than entire planetary masses. And also they can be constructed like standard objects in a level - with no atmosphere and such - negating the need for any of that seamless nonsense which they can't get working anyway.

The interesting part is that why didn't they just use the tech shown from CitizenCon if that was actual production quality client code and not something they slapped together like they always do? They did the same thing with many previous presentations such as Star Marine, Nyx, Pupil to Planet etc. And each time, they raised money because most backers are gullible in believing that stuff done in a game engine editor sort of just works in the game client. Hint: It doesn't.

In a game engine editor, you can build a base as a level and make it look like a moon or asteroid (e.g. remember Nyx?). In the game world, it would be like any other object except that it looks different. This is how the other bases in the PU currently are created and put in the game world in the editor. So if they built a moon, put a base on it, then positioned it in the game world, it would be the same as any other base already in the game world. That means you can fly to and from it - seamlessly - without the need for cut-scenes. You could also land in fps and do the same things you currently can in the other bases.

Even so...

Will it have its own ecosystem, weather patterns, day & night transition, atmosphere etc? Maybe not because moons tend not to have that, as they are usually barren rock or pure gas.

Will they fake atmosphere with a skybox which is only shown when you are on the moon, or leave it open like they do when you are on the platform at one of the current bases? Elite Dangerous leaves it open. Both ME:A and LOD have their own atmosphere because the bases are their own individual scene levels.

Going into GamesCon and CitizenCon 2016, Chris was saying all kinds of things, most of them just complete and utter bullshit - and lies. Mostly lies. For example:

Procedural Generation (“Planets V2”) (http://www.gamersnexus.net/gg/2613-chris-roberts-on-star-citizen-procedural-planets-alpha3-citizencon)

Quote
An artist can crank out five or six moons in a week for you,” Roberts told us, emphasizing that “once you've got your building blocks, somethings will be quicker. There isn't going to be a matter where we hit a magic number and, 'boof,' here comes a planet.”

Yet somehow, after promising over 100 systems, all containing God only knows how many moons and planets, as 3.0 approaches, and having changed from planets to moons (or planetoids), and moved 1 of them from 3.0 into 3.1, they are only coming out with 2 moons.

This is what was promised back in 2014 after passing $41 million in Mar that year.

Star Citizen’s Procedural Generation Explored (http://www.gamersnexus.net/news/1602-pax-star-citizen-procedural-generation-interview)

Quote
"We are going to use it as a tool for universe building. I know a lot of people think Star Citizen is purely hand-crafted and that something like Elite or No Man's Sky is all procedural, but the reality is that all of these games have a mix of hand-crafted and procedural stuff in them."

CIG has been promoting procedural world generation since they reached $41m over two years ago. Then in late 2016 they started promoting procedural generated planets in 3.0. They are now going to be delivering moons instead, but nobody knows how they are going to do it, and if they are seamless or not. If the moons are the bases of future tech which would see the promised planets then until they do it, I think speculation is going to be going on for months to come.

If they are using hand-crafted moons which are not procedural generated, but are just hand-crafted levels (like the existing stations in the game world) with procedural techniques used for generating terrain data and such, does that make much of a difference? I don't think so because as long as there is no cut-scene, I don't think that it makes any difference to gameplay. But that would depend on backer expectations.

In the long term, I personally can't think of any explanation that they would have for making planets like moons without doing it one of two ways:


None of this matters. At the end of the day, the real issue is what do backers who funded a $1m stretch goal for "R&D" in this area, think of the end result? Will they be happy with bases on moon objects? Will they patiently wait for real planets to show up some time down the road? Will they continue to fund the project until CIG gets around to solving the problem?

Right now, sources are saying that they still don't have the tech, they are still deep in Star Engine -> LumberYard transition, that 3.0 is still a pipe dream with more cuts (thus making it a lot like 2.7, than the ground-breaking 3.0 they've been promoting) to come. In about two months, we'll see.



***UPDATE - [05-17-17]***

For those who DON'T know the difference...

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/864667015977553928

Example:

SEAMLESS WORLD

All my games (http://3000ad.com/games/) which use the same engine (improved over time and across various iterations) have a seamless world. This means that there are no individual scenes (aka levels) to load. The entire game is one cohesive, data driven, procedural world.

It is also important to note that this engine has several explicit renderers for space and planets. The only games which have a completely different, non-procedural planetary terrain engine, are All Aspect Warfare and Angle Of Attack games. And they have no space combat component.

NON-SEAMLESS WORLD

Line Of Defense (http://lodgame.com) is our only game with a completely new custom engine which has individual scenes (4 space, 4 planets, 4 stations, 1 carrier).

STAR CITIZEN

All the modules (Star Marine (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15646-Star-Citizen-Alpha-26-With-Star-Marine-Available), Hangar (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/hangar-module), Arena Commander (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/module/arena-commander), Planetside (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/module/planetside)) are all non-seamless because they are individual levels which are loaded on-demand. In 2.6 patch update, for Star Marine, they introduced something called a "mega map (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15796-Around-The-Verse)" to reduce the level loading timers. It isn't what it sounds like because it's not a contiguous map generated by stitching several together. Well, read this for yourself:

Quote
We load the Mega Map as we would a standard map. The Mega Map itself is empty, but once the Mega Map is loaded, we actually start to fill the Mega Map with content of various game modes, fire, and object containers. So, we would load the Mega Map, which is empty; load the front end, which is a set of object containers; [and] load the front-end game rules, which tells the game how to work in that game mode. The user would then pick a new game mode to play. At that point we throw away all the object containers. We throw away the game mode, [then] load in the Free Fly game mode and the Dying Star object containers, but we do that via streaming rather than a complete level load, so we are able to shave the vast majority of the load time down to a few seconds rather than long enough to warrant a load screen.

The PU appears to have a single contiguous seamless world. What is still not clear is whether or not it is one contiguous scene, or if they "stitched" together several pieces and "demand load" pieces as you get close to a border. I wrote about this (http://dereksmart.com/forums/reply/4725/) in Oct 2016.



***UPDATE - [05-18-17]***

Added time-lapse video from Elite Dangerous showing seamless travel from a moon to a planetoid


Also Infinity Battlescape


**FIXED BROKEN FORUM LINKS**
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 16, 2017, 05:19:12 AM
The recently unveiled female character model from a $148 million "game"

Uh. OK.

First off, why make her so damn plain? Realism is one thing, but most of us play games to get away from reality for a while. Why give her bags under her eyes and a face just born for frowns?

Also, the body proportions look... off. Like her legs are too short. I know, the image cuts her off at the ankles, but still. Might be a result of that though, so we'll table that objection.

The outfit looks ridiculous. The pants and jacket over top are okay, but what's with the thumb-only gloves? What the heck are THOSE supposed to be?

Maybe I'm just being a shallow guy, but I'd like my female models to at least look mildly cute or maternal. This just looks like the definition of 'cranky cat lady'.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on May 16, 2017, 05:23:28 AM

ps: Line Of Defense does not have seamless space<->planetary transitions because 1) the bases on the planets are all handcrafted 2) they needed to be separate so that our networking tech can better handle "per scene" updates, and thus be able to handle a large number of players. Mass Effect: Adromeda also does it this way.


Empyrion: Galactic Survival does not do 'seamless' transition either (though it tries); there's a definite (albeit brief) load time between transitioning from space to planet or planet to space.

Still, it lets you build your own spacecraft and bases, and at least it admits it's still in Early Access.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on May 16, 2017, 05:52:01 AM
The recently unveiled female character model from a $148 million "game"

Uh. OK.

First off, why make her so damn plain? Realism is one thing, but most of us play games to get away from reality for a while. Why give her bags under her eyes and a face just born for frowns?

Also, the body proportions look... off. Like her legs are too short. I know, the image cuts her off at the ankles, but still. Might be a result of that though, so we'll table that objection.

The outfit looks ridiculous. The pants and jacket over top are okay, but what's with the thumb-only gloves? What the heck are THOSE supposed to be?

Maybe I'm just being a shallow guy, but I'd like my female models to at least look mildly cute or maternal. This just looks like the definition of 'cranky cat lady'.

They might have pulled those off a Cry(lumberyard? who knows who cares) stock library or something and place that model in that scenery for the occasion. I'm kidding, but the sad thing is that may well be true lol.

Edit : oh lol havent seen its a goon make up this toon seems from Fallout4
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on May 16, 2017, 09:05:23 AM
This is a real thread apparently made unironically

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6bforh/procedurallygenerated_meals_for_mess_hall/

This is where we're at I guess.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 16, 2017, 03:12:05 PM
This is a real thread apparently made unironically

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6bforh/procedurallygenerated_meals_for_mess_hall/

This is where we're at I guess.

I cant post there as I am banned.

They should be discussing procedurally generated cash in the real world to pay for the games development.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on May 16, 2017, 03:25:22 PM
The problem is that Roberts isn't a perfectionist. He wants to be one and constantly uses the word 'fidelity' in every interview to make it come across that way, but he can't pull it off. He's just not smart enough.

Nothing about the current iteration of any of SC's in-game modules, ship sales, lore, forums, or whathaveyou has any semblance of perfection. They're all half-broken, glitched tech demos that have half of their features/concepts broken.

Now it looks like he can't even get basic character creation right.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 16, 2017, 03:48:36 PM
The problem is that Roberts isn't a perfectionist. He wants to be one and constantly uses the word 'fidelity' in every interview to make it come across that way, but he can't pull it off. He's just not smart enough.

Nothing about the current iteration of any of SC's in-game modules, ship sales, lore, forums, or whathaveyou has any semblance of perfection. They're all half-broken, glitched tech demos that have half of their features/concepts broken.

Now it looks like he can't even get basic character creation right.

Indeed.  A perfectionist in his position would be able to project manage, would never have appointed their wife as VP Marketing, would not be lying at every convention and to every interviewer etc..
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 16, 2017, 05:09:31 PM

And they're going to be skimming an additional $5 off the top of CCU accounts (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ship-upgrades) now. Wait until those people who have cheap $30 ships with LTI (for CCU down the road), find out they have to pay $5 more to upgrade. LOL!!

But don't worry though; this is totally not a scam; and according to those guys on Reddit, they have about $85 million in the bank :D :D :D

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_qBGsgXcAEkVre.jpg)

So following the CCU uproar, they've decided to revise that plan. And somehow they made it worse. Now instead of charging, they're just going to expire them. LOL!

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/1/thread/spaceship-prices/175177

This quote from SA pretty much covers the most egregious parts of that:

Quote

Quote
There is also a potential design issue related to the number of ships in the universe at launch. We are getting to the point where we need to drill down deeper on things like ship rarity, overall dispersion and the like. When we don’t know how many ships may be present at launch, this makes it much more difficult. The implications there are far-reaching: if Carracks are the most popular ship then we need to put more resources on exploration… if Buccaneers are everywhere then we need to build missions that will be challenging and fun for Bucc pilots. It’s something that touches every part of Star Citizen.

I feel like the guys who have gone back on their promise of "We'll never sell this ship again" several times to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars don't get to suddenly start being worried about artificial rarity on some of their spaceship jpegs. That boat sailed when CIG decided to reopen sales on limited ships like five  years ago. Also, taken literally, this paragraph implies that they're doing away with the mantra of "no best ship" and plan on weighting the number and type of missions in the final game (lol) to appease owners of whatever the most common ship is, which is  hilarious. I hope everyone's ready for Ace Combat: Worse And In Space, because fighters are far and away the most popular ships in the game, because CIG keeps selling more/better versions of them.

Also, there's no way this doesn't start a firestorm:

Quote
The second part is longer term, but very important: we will plan for a process to expire the unused $0 CCUs from the system. We want existing CCUs to be used as intended: to pick a ship that works for you, and not as a permanent ‘anything goes’ option. This will not happen immediately, but as we approach 3.0 it will be an important part of this process. And we want you to know in advance that this is coming.

Some people (most people, by Zyloh's own admission) have been holding on to CCU tokens with the intent to use them for the purpose they were meant for - as the game comes together you can figure out which ship best fits your playstyle and CCU to that to make your "final decision." People who have no idea how the  a Reclaimer is going to work but think they might want to mine, for example. They're doing this because CIG told them to, and now CIG is taking that option away before all the ships or mechanics are even in the game.

Cross Chasis Upgrade (CCU) explained:

Basically you can upgrade from one ship to another. And if you have a CCU token, it used to be free. Last week they started charging $5 to do it. Now they are going to expire them instead.

More here: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ship-upgrades (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/ship-upgrades)

And here: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4b404k/psa_how_to_use_the_ccu_ship_upgrade_system_and/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4b404k/psa_how_to_use_the_ccu_ship_upgrade_system_and/)

Quote
The key to it all is that you can only CCU to a ship that's currently in-game.

Let's say CIG has ships A,B,C, and D on sale in-store ready to go. You buy Ship A, but can buy a "token" to change Ship A to any of the other ships. The token costs whatever the difference is in the price of the ships, and you get to keep all the other widgets that originally came with your Ship A (LTI, Alpa access, etc...). You can buy this token, but it's not used immediately on purchase, because maybe you decide you like Ship A after all, or whatever. Who knows.

Later on, CIG announces that they are going to be making ships E,F, and G. You really want Ship G instead of Ship D, but you want to keep your LTI, so you wait and wait and wait until it gets put in the game, and CCU your Ship D to a Ship G. That's how they're supposed to be used.

Now let's say you really really want Ship D, but you want it with LTI and they're no longer offering it. They are however offering a concept sale on Ship E and it comes with LTI. You buy Ship E - still in concept - then spend dollars to CCU it to Ship D - already in game - now with LTI even though they stopped "selling" Ship D with LTI three years ago.

NOW, let's say you think you're gonna want a Ship D way down the line, but you're not sure. So you buy a bunch of tokens for each of your ships to turn them into Ship D just in case you want to way down the line. You hold on to them, eventually they put Ship D in the game but it's twice as big and $100 more than it cost when you bought the CCU tokens. The token's value doesn't change, because it allows a straight trade and you paid the difference in value at time of purchase. So now you can take your Ship A and turn it into a Ship D for $100 less than it's currently selling for, AND you still have your LTI and game package and alpha access. Even better news, LTI Ship Ds are selling on the marketplace for $100 more than they're selling for on CIG's website, so if you sell it you're up 200 bucks. So in this case it's absolutely in your best interest to just stockpile CCUs to EVERY ship possible on the off chance you decide you want one or it triples in size and price and you can make some money.

They built an insanely shitty system and now they're mad at their users for min/maxing it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 16, 2017, 07:22:41 PM
When they can't forsee the problems they create with CCUs what chance in hell do they have to foresee the ways people will make use of the PU  in ways players and CIG find objectionable ?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 17, 2017, 04:53:11 AM
When they can't forsee the problems they create with CCUs what chance in hell do they have to foresee the ways people will make use of the PU  in ways players and CIG find objectionable ?

Well in all fairness, seeing as the game stands no chance of ever getting completed, let alone coming out, there is no need to play ahead for such trivial things.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 17, 2017, 06:23:05 AM
I updated my original post about seamless v non-seamless (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1573#msg1573). The new section is at the bottom.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on May 17, 2017, 07:26:06 AM
[...]
Also, the body proportions look... off. Like her legs are too short. I know, the image cuts her off at the ankles, but still. Might be a result of that though, so we'll table that objection.
[...]
Anatomically female legs are indeed shorter than male legs, this is a fact that is often forgotten because the industry sells products to make them appear longer.
If you attend a drawing course this is one of the first things you'll learn here.

Well this female modell is bland as hell - download Daz3D and you can create a better one in seconds and export it as FBX (With bones and blend shapes).
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: BigM on May 17, 2017, 08:38:30 AM
I believe the model is perfect, it has captured a lot of Sandi and I can see where the designer made the model look just a tiny bit better looking.

All I have to say on that!  :smug:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on May 17, 2017, 05:05:57 PM
I believe the model is perfect, it has captured a lot of Sandi and I can see where the designer made the model look just a tiny bit better looking.

All I have to say on that!  :smug:

Ha, great post.

I think they used the mo-cap tech on Sandi to scan her body then tried to touch it up and add more 'fidelity' to her.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on May 17, 2017, 06:48:10 PM
I believe the model is perfect, it has captured a lot of Sandi and I can see where the designer made the model look just a tiny bit better looking.

All I have to say on that!  :smug:

Ha, great post.

I think they used the mo-cap tech on Sandi to scan her body then tried to touch it up and add more 'fidelity' to her.
That's not how it works :)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 18, 2017, 06:15:52 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/865191926089347072

LOL!! please read the LumberYard Starter Game (https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/gamedev/now-available-starter-game/) notes and see if you recognize any of the hand-waving nonsense croberts were spouting last year; long before he even told anyone they were going to switch to LumberYard.

It's hilarious to me when I think about it. Back in a July 2015 blog (http://www.dereksmart.com/2015/07/interstellar-citizens/) I said:

1) They can't build the game promised. So far, with all the stuff they've cut or botched, this is playing out to be true. In year six, they still don't even have 25% of one game, let alone two games. And they had a delivery date of Nov 2014, with a 12, then 18 month cure period to May 2016. Even though croberts had said numerous times that increased stretch goals won't affect the delivery timeline.

2) Even if they could do #1, they'd need a stellar team to pull it off. Well, here we are in year six. A lot of talented people have come and gone. Those left have never - ever - developed an MMO. And the latest producer they trotted out, Eric, has never - ever - shipped a game. Of any kind.

3) They needed a custom engine to do it. In 2016, we come to find out that they were making the switch from StarEngine to Lumberyard.

4) Even if they had all of the above, they couldn't possibly do it for less than $150 million. Well, here we are at that amount, and still not even 25% of a game, let alone two games. Not to mention that at $65 million, all stretch goals were 100% fully funded.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 18, 2017, 04:09:40 PM
In today's ATV @ 16:43

"There is one Sun in the galaxy, which will light all of the planets"

There goes the 110 starsystems.


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on May 18, 2017, 04:18:12 PM
In today's ATV @ 16:43

"There is one Sun in the galaxy, which will light all of the planets"

There goes the 110 starsystems.

I find it hard to believe he didn't just misspeak on that one.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on May 18, 2017, 04:21:23 PM
In today's ATV @ 16:43

"There is one Sun in the galaxy, which will light all of the planets"

There goes the 110 starsystems.

Guess misspelled/uninformed and they mean per star system :) ... and you know there is no way to have a single light projecting over this distance :)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 18, 2017, 04:23:48 PM
I hope he mispoke because if there is only one Sun, that's not a galaxy, it's a star system.

In fact, the starmap shows that they have Sol starsystem (http://"https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap?location=SOL&camera=60,0,0.002,0,0"). And Stanton system, which they are supposed to be building out, has its own star, Terra Nova (http://"https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap?location=TERRA.STARS.TERRANOVA&system=TERRA&camera=5,160.4,0.0003,0,0").

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on May 18, 2017, 04:38:41 PM
Nevertheless ... is there a sale ongoing now?
I could not click on the new secret ship because I don't have VIP Access but the Sales counter is going crazy At the moment ...
(http://i.imgur.com/lrYM28T.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 18, 2017, 04:46:30 PM
Yeah, there is a new concept ship sale going on atm. It's $250.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on May 18, 2017, 04:57:36 PM
I hope he mispoke because if there is only one Sun, that's not a galaxy, it's a star system.

In fact, the starmap shows that they have Sol starsystem (http://"https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap?location=SOL&camera=60,0,0.002,0,0"). And Stanton system, which they are supposed to be building out, has its own star, Terra Nova (http://"https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap?location=TERRA.STARS.TERRANOVA&system=TERRA&camera=5,160.4,0.0003,0,0").

Gives new meaning to the quote, "Well, if there's a bright center to the universe, you're on the planet that it's farthest from." lol  :coolfish:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 19, 2017, 05:53:32 PM
So the latest schedule report (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out.

Things got pushed out another week. So the 3.0 release date is around 07/20/17 now it looks like. Seeing as they have pushed things out almost every week, with about 9 more Friday's to go, there is a chance that 3.0 could very well be pushed well into Aug, or maybe even Sept if they don't cut some things out.

The gem:

Quote
VOLUMETRIC FOG

The completion date has moved back due to unexpected issues with implementing the Volumetric fog awy from Lumberyard to work correctly with our systems.
ETA is 26th May (was 18th May)

So much for that engine switch taking days.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 19, 2017, 06:04:15 PM
New concept Ship sale to go with that new schedule- and this one has a very glossy brochure and a sob story.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 19, 2017, 06:33:49 PM
Courtesy of Quavers over at SA (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1171#post472525717)

Quote
Since 3.0 lite's first schedule report on April 14th, the projected release date has been moved back from June 29th to (between July 6th and) July 20th.

Five weeks in and they're already one-to-three weeks behind (most likely three).  That's impressive planning, even for CIG.  :laffo:

If they continue at this spectacular production rate of five weeks forward, three weeks back:
  • By June 23rd, release pushed back to August 10th
  • By July 28th, release pushed back to August 31st
  • By September 1st, release pushed back to September 21st
  • By October 6th, release pushed back to October 12th
:toot: Star Citizen: 3.0 lite in time for CitizenCon :toot:

3.2 (3.0 full-fat, as promoted at last Gamescom for end of 2016) by CitizenCon 2018? :ohdear:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on May 24, 2017, 05:09:01 PM
Ship-to-ship docking just got cut (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6cxkjk/ship_to_ship_docking_postponed_after_release/) from the feature list (like Derek reported over a year ago), but backers didn't believe him at the time and now they're pissed.

Looks like some are now trying to justify it (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6d1jzw/docking_collars_wont_be_the_last_feature_to_be/) by saying 'we always knew that Roberts couldn't deliver on everything he promised!'

Comedy gold.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 24, 2017, 07:31:15 PM
Ship-to-ship docking just got cut (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6cxkjk/ship_to_ship_docking_postponed_after_release/) from the feature list (like Derek reported over a year ago), but backers didn't believe him at the time and now they're pissed.

Looks like some are now trying to justify it (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6d1jzw/docking_collars_wont_be_the_last_feature_to_be/) by saying 'we always knew that Roberts couldn't deliver on everything he promised!'

Comedy gold.

Yep.

MVP here we come.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 24, 2017, 07:44:32 PM
Ship-to-ship docking just got cut (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6cxkjk/ship_to_ship_docking_postponed_after_release/) from the feature list (like Derek reported over a year ago), but backers didn't believe him at the time and now they're pissed.

Looks like some are now trying to justify it (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6d1jzw/docking_collars_wont_be_the_last_feature_to_be/) by saying 'we always knew that Roberts couldn't deliver on everything he promised!'

Comedy gold.

Oh wait. There's more coming. This is nuthin'. Did you read my latest article in the other thread about the network instancing?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Phraccy on May 26, 2017, 01:39:59 AM
@dsmart in your recent article, you mentioned that private servers are out? Tried searching for any news on that but came up empty. Could you provide a link?

Thanks!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on May 26, 2017, 01:53:44 AM
Disco Lando mentioned that Private Servers are the last thing they will look into and that some of us will be probably dead before it will be released ...
On top of that ... with all this planned server cluster structure in an AWS cloud, it's pretty impossible to make it local, furthermore if you are planning to have local servers you need to think of them from day one ... you can not tack them on ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Phraccy on May 26, 2017, 01:59:19 AM
Disco Lando mentioned that Private Servers are the last thing they will look into and that some of us will be probably dead before it will be released ...
On top of that ... with all this planned server cluster structure in an AWS cloud, it's pretty impossible to make it local, furthermore if you are planning to have local servers you need to think of them from day one ... you can not tack them on ...

Thanks.
Yeah that was the biggest question mark for me too, if they want to ue the cloud structure how the fuck do you implement private servers into that??
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on May 26, 2017, 12:39:56 PM
@dsmart in your recent article, you mentioned that private servers are out? Tried searching for any news on that but came up empty. Could you provide a link?

Thanks!

As Narrenbart said.

For reference, here's the original source:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 30, 2017, 09:18:23 AM
I just saw this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/6d5xti/lets_talk_network_instancing/) in an OSC thread (in response to my latest article on networking & instancing (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5263)) on Reddit

Quote
Related:

10FTC Episode 42 Question 9 (http://scqa.info/?show=10FTC&episode=42&qid=9)

Question: "Other large MMO games - especially "single server" sorts of universes - have historically seen large groups of players banding together in the name of "disruptive" behavior. This can take the form of denying an area of the game to other players, controlling the economy, or just generally causing havoc. What are your plans for the Star Citizen universe to accommodate the lone freelance miner caught up in the madness?

Chris Roberts: "even the largest player group in a given area will make up less than 10%. The other issue is, because we have such high fidelity, we can't have too many people in one particular instance, like in AC the limit at the moment it's only 8 people, with 1.0 we'll have some new tech that we've made that allows much greater player numbers in one instance, but even with a best case scenario at the moment of 50-100 players, there are only so many people that can be crammed into one instance. Matchmaking will help limit these things, like say an organisation might only be able to occupy a certain portion of an instance, there will be slots reserved for friends of other players in that instance as well. It won't be a case where a thousand people can get together and control an area anyway, even if they fill that instance, there could be another instance of the same space that matchmaking might put you into because you're unrelated to whatever activity is going on there."

10FTC Episode 43 Question 8 (http://scqa.info/?show=10FTC&episode=43&qid=8)

Chris Roberts:"Most planets have instanced space around them, it's not unique. So if there's a planet and you got 50 people in orbit and our limit is 50 people per instance, the 51st and 52nd player that enter that orbit get put into a second instance around the planet again, they just don't see the other 50 people etc etc"
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 30, 2017, 09:30:03 AM
I just saw this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/6d5xti/lets_talk_network_instancing/) in an OSC thread (in response to my latest article on networking & instancing (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5263)) on Reddit

Quote
Related:

10FTC Episode 42 Question 9 (http://scqa.info/?show=10FTC&episode=42&qid=9)

Question: "Other large MMO games - especially "single server" sorts of universes - have historically seen large groups of players banding together in the name of "disruptive" behavior. This can take the form of denying an area of the game to other players, controlling the economy, or just generally causing havoc. What are your plans for the Star Citizen universe to accommodate the lone freelance miner caught up in the madness?

Chris Roberts: "even the largest player group in a given area will make up less than 10%. The other issue is, because we have such high fidelity, we can't have too many people in one particular instance, like in AC the limit at the moment it's only 8 people, with 1.0 we'll have some new tech that we've made that allows much greater player numbers in one instance, but even with a best case scenario at the moment of 50-100 players, there are only so many people that can be crammed into one instance. Matchmaking will help limit these things, like say an organisation might only be able to occupy a certain portion of an instance, there will be slots reserved for friends of other players in that instance as well. It won't be a case where a thousand people can get together and control an area anyway, even if they fill that instance, there could be another instance of the same space that matchmaking might put you into because you're unrelated to whatever activity is going on there."

10FTC Episode 43 Question 8 (http://scqa.info/?show=10FTC&episode=43&qid=8)

Chris Roberts:"Most planets have instanced space around them, it's not unique. So if there's a planet and you got 50 people in orbit and our limit is 50 people per instance, the 51st and 52nd player that enter that orbit get put into a second instance around the planet again, they just don't see the other 50 people etc etc"

It is not a game worth playing if you want an MMO type experience.  Far too few players can influence your gameplay -and thats if it ran well - which it isnt going to do.   It is almost pointless owning anything worth anything in this type of game because you are going to have no lasting impact on the game world and can only hope to acquire assets from a very small number of other players.

it will be far far more "fun" working out how to steal or destroy the assets of those that have them than to try and preserve assets you have spent a lot of $$ on whilst doing something with them (other than holding them in a hangar to pull yourself off over)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 30, 2017, 09:42:46 AM

It is not a game worth playing if you want an MMO type experience.  Far too few players can influence your gameplay -and thats if it ran well - which it isnt going to do.   It is almost pointless owning anything worth anything in this type of game because you are going to have no lasting impact on the game world and can only hope to acquire assets from a very small number of other players.

it will be far far more "fun" working out how to steal or destroy the assets of those that have them than to try and preserve assets you have spent a lot of $$ on whilst doing something with them (other than holding them in a hangar to pull yourself off over)

Yeah. And that's going to be their problem soon because since they can't build an MMO, it is going to remain a session based game. And with those games, there is no way to save a game's state, only player stats and items.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on May 30, 2017, 10:13:30 AM
I suppose there is always going to be a percent of players who will enjoy collecting ships to use in this very limited way, just as there are people that collect cars and hide them away in private garages. 

That's not the vast majority of the player base and in that type of system the thing has to work extremely well with sufficient gameplay. 

The assets have to hold their value (even appreciate) which simply isn't going to be the case if the game is released. 

So that aspect is screwed too.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 30, 2017, 12:21:22 PM
Everspace just beat them to the planetoids in space.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBGPg3XXsAQ2ZU7.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on May 31, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
And Take-Two Interactive beats them by buying another game (company). All hail the  Kerbal (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/161355-ksp-acquired-by-take-two-interactive/)  :woop:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on May 31, 2017, 03:57:59 PM
And Take-Two Interactive beats them by buying another game (company). All hail the  Kerbal (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/161355-ksp-acquired-by-take-two-interactive/)  :woop:

Yeah I saw that this morning. It's great for those guys!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 01, 2017, 05:45:13 PM
Star Citizen quality degradation continues. In today's ATV showing Miles Eckhart NPC


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBRvO96XgAAuThc.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 03, 2017, 06:54:39 AM
So the latest 3.0 schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out. Here is a diff between previous and current versions (https://www.diffchecker.com/xFvadA7j).

Looks like a bunch of things are delayed but up to 3 weeks. A bunch of others are now TBD. Which means they're likely to be cut from the schedule.

At this rate, they will be lucky to have 3.0 out by Gamescom (Aug 22-26). Which means they're probably going to make it the highlight of their fundraising.





Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 03, 2017, 08:53:01 AM


(http://i.imgur.com/LAKqJBN.png)

Schedule began 7 weeks ago on April 14th 2017

 (https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=9CBA26B9B59370EB!307&ithint=file%2cxlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!AC2cXQnGjqMqsTU)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 04, 2017, 07:33:20 AM
2017 is a bust. $150 million & this schedule, means another 2yrs + >$28m to finish the project

Latest stats from https://starcitizentracker.github.io/

(http://i.imgur.com/tYvYEt6.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on June 05, 2017, 09:18:20 AM
In a strange sort of way I'm impressed at their progress on 3.0. I expected even more delays than this.

So that's something I guess.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 06, 2017, 11:21:09 AM
In a strange sort of way I'm impressed at their progress on 3.0. I expected even more delays than this.

So that's something I guess.

Define "progress".
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on June 06, 2017, 11:54:21 AM
In a strange sort of way I'm impressed at their progress on 3.0. I expected even more delays than this.

So that's something I guess.

Define "progress".

At this point in time, marking things as complete on the schedule diffs.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 09, 2017, 03:11:03 PM
So the latest 3.0 schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out. Here is a diff between previous and current versions (https://www.diffchecker.com/xFvadA7j).

Looks like a bunch of things are delayed but up to 3 weeks. A bunch of others are now TBD. Which means they're likely to be cut from the schedule.

At this rate, they will be lucky to have 3.0 out by Gamescom (Aug 22-26). Which means they're probably going to make it the highlight of their fundraising.

So the latest 3.0 schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out. Here is a diff between previous and current versions (https://www.diffchecker.com/oV4Ji8rF).

Everything is now delayed to July 27th: which we know they're probably going to miss. Remember when I said (see above) they'd be lucky to see this release out by Gamescom?

HIGHLIGHTS

Quote
Line 47: Procedural Planets

Line 154: Netcode

Line 162-182: Cargo

Line 180: Repair. This was feature complete in the last schedule. Now it's back on the menu + 2 weeks.

Line 208-211: Component system (in case you missed it, read my latest Quora reply (https://www.quora.com/What-computer-should-I-buy-to-play-Star-Citizen/answer/Derek-Smart) regarding performance issues)

Line 349: Volumetric Fog. Notice how it was due to be completed on June 9th (today), but somehow isn't marked as "Feature Complete"? Yeah, me too.

Line 378: Mission System Broker. Delayed a whole - freaking - month. LOL! I'm dying.

Yeah, no freaking way this gets anywhere near a July 27th release. The whole schedule is bullshit, really. On May 26th, I wrote an article (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-5276) based on leaks from sources who told me the live schedule was pure bullshit.

(https://imgur.com/AMoRQyz.gif)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 10, 2017, 05:32:26 AM
Oh, this is getting better and better. These are some of the hardcore supporters btw.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6gbzc1/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170609/dipjdww/
Quote
Either all you morons responding are literally IQ below 20 or you actually just are white knighting so hard you can't even see it. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING SCHEDULE. I am TALKING about the fucking LIES said last year that they were giving 3.0 by dec. 19. Which was an OBVIOUS lie. Then the fact they said JUNE. Which they OBVIOUSLY had the plan to release it at gamescom. Its fucking stupid of anyone to just think ooooh, wow, gee what a coincidence!!!! I mean give me a god damn break. For real. Stop being moronic. Schedule or NOT, they just PUT whatever they want is delayed so WHOA, MAGIC, it will be JUST IN TIME FOR GAMESCOM. FFS we all said it 1st

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6gbzc1/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170609/dip957d/
Quote
Im with ellindar.
How was 3.0 supposed to release end of last year given how many things are obviously not ready and features are slipping?
You'd have to be a liar or be totally incompetent to give these kinds of estimates. My guess is that CR is both. Lying straight up about release dates to get more people on board and funding then slowly spacing it out and buying time as we are seeing here. And also completely detached from technical side of things - promising things that are straight up impossible then gutting stuff out.
I think there has been a ton of mismanagement for this project. And im losing hope fast. If 3.0 doesnt deliver something substantial im bailing. I only pledged a few hundred so whatever.
Also dont give a shit about all the cultists who pledged thousands and are too deep in the hole to have any reasonable discussion.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 15, 2017, 08:36:00 AM
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/engine-question/250379 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/50259/thread/engine-question/250379)

Quote
So we've been told many times that the game's engine ('Star Engine') has been changed a lot from the original CryEngine (/Lumberyard) base, but the differences listed are usually to do with physics and gameplay features. My question is: What about the rendering/graphical side? How much has this been changed from the original CryEngine?

Quote
That's a mighty big question! Here's a quick list of the main features, but I'm sure we'll have forgotten some stuff!
  • Object space shader damage (allows 4 different types of damage to be permanently inflicted on ships, including cutting holes, and blended seamlessly into the base shading)
  • Real time environment-probe capture and compression (avoids needing to bake probes in space and on planets)
  • Image based lens flares (use entire source image to simulate 4 different physically based lens distortions per colour channel on up to 20 individual elements)
  • Physically based bloom (wide exponential kernel based purely on light intensity)
  • Human eye exposure simulation (capture histogram of light intensity from both screen and surroundings, isolate range of light we intend to focus on, simulate both pupil and photo-pigment reactions for quick and slow reactions)
  • Major improvements to planar lights (far more physical basis now which results in major quality improvements)
  • Intelligent mesh-merging system (repeatedly searches for best bang-for-buck mesh merge opportunity in a scene until we hit a memory limit)
  • Upgraded volumetric fog (e.g. support for planar lights, light-boxes, env-probe priority sorting)
  • Major upgrade to shadow pool system (all lights share one giant pool for better dynamic resolution scaling, shadows can be cached between frames for better performance)
  • Render target pooling (shares memory between internal textures used in the renderer to vastly reduce VRAM usage)
  • Render to texture pipeline (ability to render secondary viewports with full or limited feature set to then be used as textures in the primary scene, e.g. video comms or holograms)
  • Tiled lighting upgrades (use rasterization light culling for greater efficiency, particle support)
  • Density based LOD algorithm (LODs change based on polygon density to ensure consistent appearance, less artist intervention, and promote more optimal art assets with fewer sub-pixel polygons)
  • GGX normal map filtering (gloss adjusted in mip-chain to best fit of our GGX lighting model to give the same results as super sampled normals)
  • Camera relative rendering (allows 64bit world without incurring any rendering performance hit by maintaining 32bit precision for rendering)
  • GPU Particle System (built from the ground up for efficiency, distinct from Lumberyards and CryEngine's GPU particle systems)
  • Various improvements to transparency sorting (generalized system, allow depth of field and motion blur to not effect nearby in-focus objects, order independent transparency for specific shaders such as hair)
  • Artist friendly profiler (captures statistics per art-team, and per area of the level allowing accurate breakdowns and quick diagnosing of performance issues)
  • Physically based atmospheric scattering
  • Hierarchical object management (efficient searches and culling, local coordinate frames for things like ships inside ships on planets which are rotating etc)
On top of this there's procedural asteroids and the huge amount of tech for procedural planets, but these strictly speaking aren't so much part of the renderer but higher level features that feed content to the renderer.

Ali Brown

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 15, 2017, 12:00:09 PM
Quote
Coming in Around the Verse today: We look at Serialized Variables, essential network tech to building the Star Citizen Persistent Universe!

https://twitter.com/RobertsSpaceInd/status/875406669257244673 (https://twitter.com/RobertsSpaceInd/status/875406669257244673)

This is a critical networking component that was since removed from the 3.0 - 3.2 schedule. They will probably bring it back tomorrow?

Aside from that, this is someone on the game's official Twitter feed, trying to associate a networking construct with graphics performance :shrug:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 16, 2017, 05:01:04 AM
LOL! I can't breathe. They have finally invented Serialized Variables!  :laugh: :supaburn:

The hilarious part isn't that they been touting this for the better part of a year, or that it was on the 3.0 schedule, but was subsequently removed and no longer appears anywhere between 3.0 - 3.2; but the fact that they're highlighting it as something that's so overly critical, that it warrants a dev video about it. You know why that is? Because they made a big deal out of it as a way to hand wave the game's piss-poor performance. Some backers latched on this sleight of hand, foolishly thinking that it was in fact going to solve their FPS issues. In fact, take a look at my previous post above which includes a recent Twitter post.

It's all rubbish. It's them preparing the backers for the same piss-poor networking layer in the upcoming - and already doomed - 3.0 build. The backend benefits are going to be negligible at best; and it's certainly not going to mean that much to client-side FPS performance, let alone being able to cram more than 8 clients in an instance before the server coughs up moth balls and croaks. And aside from all that, this is something that they should have done right from the start, or around the time when they decided they were building an MMO after all.

This isn't even a case of putting the cart before the horse. There's just no cart. It's a JPEG of a cart.

Quote
Serialized variables is also a cornerstone of building a persistent universe, it’ll require multiple servers communicating with each other*

- This means several servers can be aware of an entity all at the same time, how they decide which one gets the final say is using tokens

- A token can only be held by one computer at a time, this means by linking serialized variables and tokens they’ll be able to transfer authority from one server to another as quickly as flicking a switch


* heh, you think (1 (http://lodgame.com/faqs/how-many-players-are-supported/), 2 (http://www.lodgame.com/downloads/LOD_wide_span_global_server.jpg))?


https://youtu.be/L4m2nwn5wT8 (https://youtu.be/L4m2nwn5wT8)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Stilo on June 16, 2017, 08:24:52 AM
It's only me or is similar to this?

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/developerguide/network-replicas.html

UPDATE

I've seen the video..
So basically they have centralized the serialization code (using an observer or a default setter) to serialize and propagate a single variable change?

In wich world this is a revolution? And why is done now and not originally?

And the legacy code of ALL the components and Entities must be refactored to use this new system? (bugs alert! because since nobody has cared before if a variable is synchronized or not they will have to serialize all o risk some code to use an old value..)

Maybe they will use this system only in new entities/components..
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 16, 2017, 11:14:01 AM
Yeah. It's all rubbish really.

Here is another good write-up (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1293#post473465769) by Hav, over on SA.

Quote
Thanks. (I don't advise anyone read this rant.)

Okay, the first thing he's doing is mush-mouthing the concept of 'entities' (or objects) with the idea that all the 'entities' (or objects) need to be networked.  That's what we call a 'sweeping generalization', or a very reductive model.  It is vaguely meaningless.

Handwave the backend communication, that's all Austin...

Client/Server communication, alright...

Okay, he's describing a problem of bandwidth and fidelity, where bandwidth is the limitation in supplying bits to the client/server and fidelity is the detail of the 'model' that it's trying to sling around.  What they're doing is trying to offload the problem of a lack of awareness in the programmers into a formalized process.

Network programming is not *very hard*, and while it takes years to learn the ins and outs, stay the fuck out of the OSI model, it's layered for a reason.  It's certainly _esoteric_, but it's entirely logical and while the scale can blow your mind, it's patterned behavior that just iterates really quickly.

huh, API?  Why is that man using an OO analogy?  Why is he refusing to call it an interface?

Oh Application _Programmer_ Interface, not Application _Program_ Interface, like the rest of the world.

None of this is networking.  He's completely handwaving anything to do with networking.

Every 'entity has it's own table' is a key-value store.  This is how anything persists; mysql, SQL, NoSQL, Mongo, SQLite, csv, struct.  This is not complex.

Updating single values within rows usually requires re-writing the row, although you can serialize a value ad infinitum; overhead comes in how it's stored.

Sending the full entity states periodicially isn't required if you hash the entity table and look for a hash comparison.  eg.  The md5 hash for 'I am a delicious hawaiian pizza' is always '9b019256aabd5ae063661e6b5b78b7db'.  Hash your table, send a comparison, check it, if it differs, update the full state.

Hell, I used to use a system of grouped states back in the 1990s; hashed the full store and three sub-groups because bandwidth was even tighter back then.

"We have not solved the bandwidth problem."

No shit, you still have *n problem unless you're loading spreading and doing the backbone over extremely low latency connections, which Amazon is not going to help with. 

OMIGOD, they discovered key updates.

HAH subgrouping.

Wait, so their big idea is to binary-pack a key-value pair to send via UDP?  That puts them back in the same place they were;  TCP would indicate that a value was received, but not changed.  I'm not seeing how this isn't entirely circular back to the start of the piece apart from the binary pack?

Lol at the macros being the timesaver.

Oh, dear god, previously we would have needed functions in each class, or read the chapter on polymorphism.

Admission that there's no unit testing that would stop a programmer 'forgetting' a variable.

The API is an _abstraction_ of the concrete class.  I'm hoping C++ programmers can correct my shit, because there's no actual networking in this piece other than an acknowledgment that they're running into problems with physics.  This is normally an _interface_ that strips down a more anal definition or model into a more bite-sized chunk so you don't spin cycles on defining the color of something if you only need it's speed.  It's a way of stopping polymorphism hell.

Okay, their network engineer is describing object oriented programming.  He's also tacitly admitting that they have a problem with key/value updates on an atomic level because there is finite bandwidth involved.  One of the reasons why this is a problem is because there are two types of packet in the world;  TCP and UDP.

UDP is just a stream of shit.  It's thrown at the client and can arrive in any order, or not arrive at all.  The sending side doesn't care, it's your problem to store and deal with the stream.  This tends to get used with games to do positional updates, which is why tight bandwidth or throttling causes people to jump around and rubberband.  UDP packets have a particular size and you want to stay inside that, or the client has to deal with trunca

TCP is pendantic.  It has to be received, and received in the right order.  A client will ask for a sequence again if it arrives out of order, and if it misses a packet, it'll do the same.  Downloading files works like this, because getting chunks of file in the wrong order will make it useless.

if you're firing key/value updates with UDP, then some of them may not get through.  Firing with TCP means they get through, eventually.  This is why there is an older model of using UDP to do updates, then having TCP rebuild the key/value store.  Small, frequent updates of vitals, with larger sync updates for abstracts.

He is _completely right_ about the challenges they still face; the number, frequency and priority of the messaging are _the things that will kill bandwidth_ and limit their instance occupancy, particular unless they shard that server.  They're looking at packet size x packet frequency x packet quantity x player and will shag themselves over if they don't build in some of the things that Eve has been doing to calm the packetstorm.

very tl;dr - They've discovered how to do __get and __set over the network between the store and the client; news at 11.  Get a goddamned refund.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: J How on June 16, 2017, 12:01:10 PM
Pretty much spot on description from the SA forum, hell even The Sims Online used an API in the exact same way between the clients and server. If you want a real challenge try doing that in an open world online racing game. As he mentioned in his post, timing and order are everything.

These are not new techniques, in fact I would say it's a little outdated given languages like Go handle this a lot better.

I found the token idea enlightening and remarkable, it's a very interesting direction to go in too. Constructively I see three potential pitfalls:

1) Taking into account tokens on AWS - depending on the size of their EC2 instances that it becomes a very difficult to filter out the noise between a MA (master server) and SA (listening servers), if you have five servers, four being listening servers then by definition those servers will be getting traffic from clients (except for the master server if you have any sense), if the token switches that means that server will have to drop all client data and then dynamically reallocate the clients to the server that has passed on its token. If all five servers are sending and receiving traffic then the master effectively becomes swamped with clients at the same time as losing its token = chaos. TL;DR if they do use tiered servers with tokens and dynamically switching it will be very difficult to maintain consistency, if they don't then they will run into bandwidth issues anyway.

2) Why are they attempting to reinvent the wheel? There are already third party engine modules of CryEngine that handle this already in a pre-built form? This means a lot of time has been used for something that has already existed off the shelf for ages, if it doesn't do what they want it to do they could very easily modify them, they're open source or licensed models provide the source.

3) This is adding another layer to their engine, at this point with so many layers how will they debug? They mentioned it in the video but now you run into the issue that the client (or one of the clients) may not necessarily know which server has the token (or if there are connectivity issues) in which case it becomes more difficult to troubleshoot and diagnose. This is not bad within itself if you have a custom toolset for debugging issues written for your platform, but again you're adding time creating one. Thus more code to maintain (refactor as CIG likes to say) from revision to revision of the custom written network stack as part of the custom written modules as part of their bespoke engine (Star Engine or Lumberyard with heavy customisation). More techdebt.

Yeah. It's all rubbish really.

Here is another good write-up (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1293#post473465769) by Hav, over on SA.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 16, 2017, 05:37:03 PM
These are not new techniques, in fact I would say it's a little outdated given languages like Go handle this a lot better.

Stop spreading FUD. Clearly you know nothing about game development.

Quote
1) Taking into account tokens on AWS - depending on the size of their EC2 instances that it becomes a very difficult to filter out the noise between a MA (master server) and SA (listening servers), if you have five servers, four being listening servers then by definition those servers will be getting traffic from clients (except for the master server if you have any sense), if the token switches that means that server will have to drop all client data and then dynamically reallocate the clients to the server that has passed on its token. If all five servers are sending and receiving traffic then the master effectively becomes swamped with clients at the same time as losing its token = chaos. TL;DR if they do use tiered servers with tokens and dynamically switching it will be very difficult to maintain consistency, if they don't then they will run into bandwidth issues anyway.

Yeah but, assuming they know what they're doing, they may end up sticking a proxy server somewhere in the mix. When we built our WSG framework, these are some of the things we - like most devs building massive online games - had to take into consideration.

Quote
2) Why are they attempting to reinvent the wheel? There are already third party engine modules of CryEngine that handle this already in a pre-built form? This means a lot of time has been used for something that has already existed off the shelf for ages, if it doesn't do what they want it to do they could very easily modify them, they're open source or licensed models provide the source.

CryEngine doesn't provide adequate support for this; and is mostly entity based. The last time I checked, even the LY implementation didn't delve much farther down the rabbit hole. This is probably why they have to do this now; especially given that the game croberts is dreaming up, is simply not going to work with the baseline CE3/LY implementation.

Quote
3) This is adding another layer to their engine, at this point with so many layers how will they debug? They mentioned it in the video but now you run into the issue that the client (or one of the clients) may not necessarily know which server has the token (or if there are connectivity issues) in which case it becomes more difficult to troubleshoot and diagnose. This is not bad within itself if you have a custom toolset for debugging issues written for your platform, but again you're adding time creating one. Thus more code to maintain (refactor as CIG likes to say) from revision to revision of the custom written network stack as part of the custom written modules as part of their bespoke engine (Star Engine or Lumberyard with heavy customisation). More techdebt.

It's a lot worse than that because they're doing it - at this point - in development where they have a ton of things that would need to be changed. And those things are going to not only cause delays, but are going to break. In fact, this is why the 3.0 schedule keeps slipping, and this portion of the networking layer revision was completely removed from the schedule. They've bitten off more than they can chew, and I have every reason to believe that it's all R&D, and that at some point they're going to abandon it, and stick with what they have in place.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 16, 2017, 05:44:11 PM
So the latest 3.0 schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out. Here is a diff between previous and current versions (https://www.diffchecker.com/oQY2DFl1).

The fact that the "aim date" still remains July 27, 2017, even as things are delayed, removed (TBD), means that they're probably going to ship 3.0 with some items removed, while pushing them either into 3.0x or 3.1 etc. It's like 2.0 all over again. Also, Gamescom 2017 is coming up in Aug, and CitizenCon 2017 is Oct 27th (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/15961-CitizenCon-Tickets-Announcement). Both in Germany. So either way, there is going to be some version of a 3.0 build at one of these two events (fundraising!).

Star Citizen Schedule Analysis  (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1u0o7rUOPwTXsiEdWC7Mkr20byGC3Eze4YVl5DwWftXc/edit#gid=1189005387)(spreadsheet)

Star Citizen Tracker (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/)

HIGHLIGHTS

Quote
Everything is fucked. And delayed. Again

Also, quick synopsis from Nicholas over at SA (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&pagenumber=1294#post473473899)

Completed

- Rover
- "Reworked" Cutlass Black
- "Reworked" Devastator Shotgun "Some minor polish remains"
- "Reworked" Arrowhead Sniper rifle "Some minor polish remains"
- Mobiglass refactor
- Diffusion subset for 3.0

Delayed

- Derelict ships. this was marked feature complete but also delayed 2 weeks (ETA is 30th June)
- Items 2.0 ROVER AND DRAGONFLY IN SHIPS (ETA June 27th)
- Asteroid Physics (ETA June 23rd)
- Exposure Improvements (ETA June 30th)
- Solar System Service Shop (ETA June 23rd)

Other

- New Message Queue has "a number of issues noted" (no longer has an ETA)
- Repair - "Code Complete Bugfixing to follow as needed" (no longer has an ETA)

So...

- 4 reworks of things already finished, but still not actually completely "finished"
- a new golf cart marked complete even though you cant transport it or use it on a planet
- and whatever the fuck "diffusion subset" means.
- Actual gameplay features 0
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 19, 2017, 10:12:53 AM
This is an interesting thread. The Rest of the Star Citizen Universe: Progress Update (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6hzg2n/the_rest_of_the_star_citizen_universe_progress/)?

It seems like it was just yesterday when I was saying that they were never - ever - going to be able to build the world scope they promised. That aside from the fact that their tech requires them to build these moons/planets manually (no procedural tech to automate the process).

Now some hardcore backers who already know the original claim was bullshit to begin with, are saying that they knew it was bullshit, that they would be happy to get just some of them etc.

Oh how far we've come.

A company with over $151m can't build tools to create a procedurally generated world. Meanwhile, my Battlecruiser/Universal Combat, games built over three decades ago, as well as current games like Elite Dangerous, Infinity Battlescape, Dual Universe, all have that tech in some form or another.

It's amazing how far we've come from back in Aug 2016 when 3.0 was coming on or before Dec 19th. Now it's completely off the radar.

(http://i.imgur.com/e6UC0Ij.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on June 19, 2017, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: CIG
64 Bit
Quote from: CIG
MMO with 1000s if not 100.000s clients

Failure before first line of code is written (except they are writing their own OSI modell with designated protocol)
nuff said
*drops mic*
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 19, 2017, 12:13:39 PM
Quote from: CIG
64 Bit
Quote from: CIG
MMO with 1000s if not 100.000s clients

Failure before first line of code is written (except they are writing their own OSI modell with designated protocol)
nuff said
*drops mic*

Yeah, we called bullshit on that one right off the bat. They still can't get more than 8 clients in an instance before the server falls over.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 19, 2017, 05:33:14 PM
And the excuses continue to roll in from the faithful.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6hzg2n/the_rest_of_the_star_citizen_universe_progress/

Does Chris traditionally do 4 shows or is this approach new for ShitizenCon this year ?


"Grab a ticket to ensure your seat at the show. The 650 tickets for Capitol Theater are €50 each and will go on sale with the following format:

Saturday 1st July 7PM CEST: 150 Tickets available to Concierge and Subscribers only.
Saturday 1st July 11PM CEST: 150 Tickets available to Concierge and Subscribers only.
Sunday 2nd July 7PM CEST: 150 Tickets, now available to all backers.
Sunday 2nd July 11PM CEST: The remaining 200 Tickets available to all backers."


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on June 19, 2017, 11:30:37 PM
Yeah, we called bullshit on that one right off the bat. They still can't get more than 8 clients in an instance before the server falls over.  :laugh:

Game runs bad even when its offline  - this guy did interesting tests:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/starcitizen-performance-cpu-scaling-in-hacked-offl

 So basically engine just can not process all that "fidelity"...after 5 years...

6 ships in instance = 20-25 fps...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on June 20, 2017, 04:09:05 AM
Yeah, we called bullshit on that one right off the bat. They still can't get more than 8 clients in an instance before the server falls over.  :laugh:

Game runs bad even when its offline  - this guy did interesting tests:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/starcitizen-performance-cpu-scaling-in-hacked-offl

 So basically engine just can not process all that "fidelity"...after 5 years...

6 ships in instance = 20-25 fps...

Lol i went through the link and i truly felt sorry for the blind fan boys.. The long promised delta patcher is also no where to be heard off and nobody even talks of it anymore now so i dont know what CIG will deliver if anything. To be honest i heard of delta patching from CIG only :vince: and never thought it was something that needed research for to be implemented but with cig its always reinventing the wheel. :laugh: :laugh:

Also does anyone knows which game has the record for most players in an instance and how much??
i recently saw wargamming new map where they are doing 30 vs 30 battle!!!! so 60 players 


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 20, 2017, 04:21:51 AM
Also does anyone knows which game has the record for most players in an instance and how much??
i recently saw wargamming new map where they are doing 30 vs 30 battle!!!! so 60 players

Planetside 2 holds the record.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on June 20, 2017, 05:07:42 AM
Quote from: SomeUserInTheForum
Once Star Citizen switches to Vulkan you will see an increase ...

I love this one :D Vulcan is a derivate of OpenGL. AFAIK Their current modell is DirectX (DX11).
If they change the render API they have to rework EVERY motherfuckingkiwibastard Shader / Graphic / Model because OpenGL handles them all a little bit differently.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on June 20, 2017, 05:08:27 AM
Lol i went through the link and i truly felt sorry for the blind fan boys..

  And after looking at those results, I am even more confident that they just can not build promised game, even single player SQ42 part...because engine just can not handle those over complicated ship designs..

 All backers blame netcode for bad PU performance in SC forums, but looks like even engine in offline mode can not handle all those ships...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 20, 2017, 05:37:32 AM
Lol i went through the link and i truly felt sorry for the blind fan boys..

  And after looking at those results, I am even more confident that they just can not build promised game, even single player SQ42 part...because engine just can not handle those over complicated ship designs..

 All backers blame netcode for bad PU performance in SC forums, but looks like even engine in offline mode can not handle all those ships...

Is there a T-shirt out there with

"It's only Alpha!" on it ?

Get some designed I would buy and wear one...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 20, 2017, 08:39:30 AM
Quote from: SomeUserInTheForum
Once Star Citizen switches to Vulkan you will see an increase ...

I love this one :D Vulcan is a derivate of OpenGL. AFAIK Their current modell is DirectX (DX11).
If they change the render API they have to rework EVERY motherfuckingkiwibastard Shader / Graphic / Model because OpenGL handles them all a little bit differently.

Well, we can write that one off because LumberYard doesn't currently have any plans for Vulcan support.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 20, 2017, 08:42:31 AM
And after looking at those results, I am even more confident that they just can not build promised game, even single player SQ42 part...because engine just can not handle those over complicated ship designs..

All backers blame netcode for bad PU performance in SC forums, but looks like even engine in offline mode can not handle all those ships...

That's correct. The "fidelity" factor is what they used to gain all this interest, support, money. They completely forgot that the engine they were using to build the game, wouldn't even be able to support it.

This is probably why they are coming out with moons and planetoids in 3.0, instead of the procgen planets they promised and showed back in 2016.

But 3.0 is on the way. The Evocati "aim" date, as per last week's schedule update (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report), is 06-21-17 to 07-05-17. We know that's probably not going to happen. And when it eventually drops, we'll see what the performance is like.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on June 21, 2017, 01:47:39 PM
I think they'll keep releasing patches and new versions of the game, but they won't be anywhere near what was promised. Half of the features that they promise for each patch (to generate hype and get more money) won't be in the patches and will instead be pushed back/delayed by years. Eventually CIG won't be able to keep up with the promises-to-backlog ratio and it will all collapse.

It's only a matter of time before the most hardcore backers start to see what's going on. The general gaming community already has enough sense to stay away from this project until the game has been proven to be viable.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 22, 2017, 08:00:29 AM
I think they'll keep releasing patches and new versions of the game, but they won't be anywhere near what was promised. Half of the features that they promise for each patch (to generate hype and get more money) won't be in the patches and will instead be pushed back/delayed by years. Eventually CIG won't be able to keep up with the promises-to-backlog ratio and it will all collapse.

It's only a matter of time before the most hardcore backers start to see what's going on. The general gaming community already has enough sense to stay away from this project until the game has been proven to be viable.

When opinion turns against you it turns against you big time.

The mainstream press are sitting back waiting for something to swing the pendulum one way or another and they are already couching their bets so as to not lose face.

if 3.0 is poorly received and lacking any real progress I doubt they will be too kind unless backers are flooding the servers and singing its praises.   Which doesn't seem likely to happen.  Add another annual sale season  into the mix with a poorly received 3.0 and the time could be run down pretty quickly.   

There wont be more patches beyond stuff designed to keep the ship from going down as quickly as at otherwise would.

As people have said ... no White Knight is going to be on the horizon for SC with all the presales and engineering debt.

What will be interesting is whether or not CIG delay 3.0 until AFTER the annual big sales (or some version of that with a 3.1-4.0 etc offered as coming very soon to fix the short comings of a earlier than then paired down 3.0 release)

That has worked before and it could work again ....

CIG claim technical/ staff issues that prevented 3.0 being what they wanted and suggest the fixes are imminent.  They get  another stack of cash in ShitizenCon etc and off we go for another 12 months...albeit with more refunds and complaints.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 22, 2017, 01:03:14 PM
Ah, good times

2.7 is now called 3.0 and will have this in it (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4ykxlp/27_is_now_called_30_and_will_have_this_in_it/)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 22, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
CIG decided to start scheduled 06/23 concept sale (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Standalone-Ships/Aopoa-Nox-LTI-Warbond) ($45!) today. No doubt in response to my earlier tweets about tomorrow's 3.0 schedule.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on June 22, 2017, 01:50:11 PM
CIG decided to start scheduled 06/23 concept sale (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/Standalone-Ships/Aopoa-Nox-LTI-Warbond) ($45!) today. No doubt in response to my earlier tweets about tomorrow's 3.0 schedule.
Small ugly racer after they dropped the CCU stuff ... guess this will be another 50k like fathers day .... and many hours more engineering debt
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 22, 2017, 05:13:41 PM
Yeah. Apparently it's a "finished" model. Though there's nothing to do with it. My guess is they are trying to sell it as part of the 3.0 hype for moon racing.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 22, 2017, 06:02:27 PM
So in today's AtV where they were flogging the latest concept ship/bike, they also had a segment (FF to 26:46) about SolEd. Their solar system editor.

It's hilarious that they are showing a tool - outside of the CryEditor that's basically barebones for entity placement. So they've moved away from the procedural worlds now and shown that they have to build the entire game world - by hand. In an editor. Q.E.D.


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 23, 2017, 07:20:55 AM
So in today's AtV where they were flogging the latest concept ship/bike, they also had a segment (FF to 26:46) about SolEd. Their solar system editor.

It's hilarious that they are showing a tool - outside of the CryEditor that's basically barebones for entity placement. So they've moved away from the procedural worlds now and shown that they have to build the entire game world - by hand. In an editor. Q.E.D.


They use the word "tool" a lot and then there is the mention of the "heavy internal push at 28.40.

Now we are getting to the truth.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on June 23, 2017, 07:52:36 AM
Almost as good as this $15 Unity script :D
https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/42607
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 23, 2017, 10:35:45 AM
I knew that Nox bike they put up for sale, looked familiar. Those fuckers at CIG are Archering us now it looks like :D

(http://i.imgur.com/ZDFDbpn.jpg)

All Aspect Warfare, circa 2009 (!)

(http://www.3000ad.com/pics/aaw/08-11-06/pic047.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 29, 2017, 02:23:42 PM
This video is great because it captures exactly what free eyes see and experience when they try the game.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 29, 2017, 03:40:17 PM
This video is great because it captures exactly what free eyes see and experience when they try the game.


He got a little bit 14 year old girl seeing a penis giddy at one point  - but very good otherwise.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on June 30, 2017, 05:40:35 AM
I don't waste my time with watching these kind of videos completely. His final conclusion segment starts at 28:00 and isn't bad. He captures the current state of SC right on the nose:

"Remember people, never invest more then you're willing to loose. This is doublely true with Star Citizen. It's not a complete product. It's not even a beta. It's an early technical alpha that has great potential to be one of best space games of our time. Or, the most funded failure of all time in video games."

Now we just have to wait the next few months to see his last prediction turning into the correct one.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on June 30, 2017, 09:35:17 AM
I don't waste my time with watching these kind of videos completely. His final conclusion segment starts at 28:00 and isn't bad. He captures the current state of SC right on the nose:

"Remember people, never invest more then you're willing to loose. This is doublely true with Star Citizen. It's not a complete product. It's not even a beta. It's an early technical alpha that has great potential to be one of best space games of our time. Or, the most funded failure of all time in video games."

Now we just have to wait the next few months to see his last prediction turning into the correct one.

His analysis is fundamentally flawed and at odds with what he has done. 

I dont know the guy buy he clearly has some intelligent points to make about the game and gamers.

What he seems to be missing is a financial or business understanding of where this is likely headed which is understandable because it is difficult to be expert in all the disciplines required to analyse a project like this.

There is also the fact that his own actions dont really add credence to his position.  He says he has resisted looking at SC all this time despite lots of requests to do so, now he has, he has spent some cash.    Yet he says others should only risk what they are prepared to lose.  The point is any sensible analysis would show people tending to get more and more invested to a point where it would be unreasonable to conclude backers could really "afford" to lose.

Yet the project is likely to fail....on the balance of probabilities it is silly to spend money on it at this point in time.

Do as I say not as I do..

 

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2017, 09:46:54 AM
His analysis is fundamentally flawed and at odds with what he has done. 

I dont know the guy buy he clearly has some intelligent points to make about the game and gamers.

What he seems to be missing is a financial or business understanding of where this is likely headed which is understandable because it is difficult to be expert in all the disciplines required to analyse a project like this.

There is also the fact that his own actions dont really add credence to his position.  He says he has resisted looking at SC all this time despite lots of requests to do so, now he has, he has spent some cash.    Yet he says others should only risk what they are prepared to lose.  The point is any sensible analysis would show people tending to get more and more invested to a point where it would be unreasonable to conclude backers could really "afford" to lose.

Yet the project is likely to fail....on the balance of probabilities it is silly to spend money on it at this point in time.

Do as I say not as I do..

I agree with all of this, and those echo my own thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on June 30, 2017, 10:54:14 AM
I doubt he has researched/followed the project as deeply as we (Derek) have overhere. Without that knowlegde, one is apt to stay more neutral I think. I can't imagine him saying this with all the knowlegde we have. That would be rather foolish. Maybe he has said something about it in the first 27 minutes, dunno.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on June 30, 2017, 03:28:17 PM
Yup! New schedule is up. Totally called it. Extended delays. We're now middle of August "release" window. Which means "Road To GamesCom 2017"

Sources were right when I reported they were going to try and push this out in time of GamesCom (Aug 22), one of their biggest fundraising drives.

Notice how ships (the primary money driver) tend to be on schedule. Gee, I wonder why that is happening.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

DIFF: https://www.diffchecker.com/dx95qRIX

(https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/rzz6h0fq38y3xr/source/Aims-6-30_11-29-6.png)

Notice how NONE of the material elements of this patch are completed? And this was due out 7 MONTHS ago back when croberts said Dec 19th, 2016.

8 items "completed"
20 delayed

COMPLETED

Quote
INHABITED DERELICT SHIP SITES

PICK UP & CARRY

INSURANCE (Code Complete. Now supporting bugfixing)

CARGO (Code Complete. Now supporting bugfixing.)

KIOSK SUPPORT (Code Complete. Now supporting bugfixing.)

ENGINE TRAILS & CONTRAILS

ASTEROID PHYSICS ( * Feature Complete)

SOLAR SYSTEM MISSION SERVICE V1 “MISSION BROKER”

DELAYED

Quote
MISSION GIVERS
Eckhart has been implemented in Subsumption, now just need to polish and iron out the kinks. The team will now start setting up Ruto with the goal that both Mission Givers will be fully setup by the end of the next sprint.
ETA is 14th July (was 30th June)

DELAMAR / LEVSKI
Due to the time required for the correct implementation of the elevators and their local physics grids this date has moved back slightly
ETA is 7th July (was 30th June)

ITEM 2.0 SHIP CONVERSION – PART 2
Due to issues with the last remaining ships we want to make sure all are fixed before implementation.
ETA is 3rd July (was 30th June)

DOORS AND AIRLOCKS
During an internal milestone review that we had this week, we identified further elements of work and polish that we will aim to have completed for next week’s milestone review.
ETA is 5th July (was 30th June)

ROVER AND DRAGONFLY IN SHIPS
The conversion to the Item 2.0 ships and how they work has introduced unforeseen issues with their physics. This will require a combination of Tech Design and Physics code to address the situation. This is proving to be a more in-depth problem than initially anticipated and the code team was pulled to help support elevators and general physics crashes which we necessary for internal review.
ETA is 12th July (was 27th June)

HINT SYSTEM
A few of the required engineering tasks were slightly delayed in their completion this week due to bugfixing being required on other systems.
ETA is 12th July (was 27th June)

ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER
Good progress has been made on this feature for 3.0.0, however an issue was discovered that severely affected ships. The LA Engineering team is currently busy supporting the item 2.0 ship conversion and the UI team with the implementation of their features, their support is required for this particular bug so we had to wait until they were available, resulting in a delay.
ETA is 7th July (was 30th June)

ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
Work on this feature was paused in order to support various bugs and feature polish for this week’s milestone review.
ETA is 7th June (was 28th June)


ITEM 2.0 MULTI FUNCTION DISPLAYS
Completion of this task was delayed due to support teams being focused on internal milestone demo review.
ETA is 7th July (was 29th June)

CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 25th July (was 17 July)

PERSONAL MANAGER APP
Work on this task has been postponed so team can focus on resolving other systems.
ETA is 3rd July (was 27th June)

CARGO MANIFEST APP
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 7th July (was 3rd July)

VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review, specifically the Hint System.
ETA is 13th July (was 6th July) ETA is 27th July (was 13th July)

SHIP SELECTOR APP & INSURANCE CLAIM
Delayed due to team’s focus polishing the mission manager.
ETA is 19th July (was 5th July)

INVENTORY SYSTEM
ETA is 7th July (was 3rd July)

STARMAP APP
UI will break down feedback from internal milestone review and begin to address issues that came up.
ETA is 7th July (was 29th June)

COMMS SYSTEM UI
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 18th July (was 10th July)

MISSION SYSTEM
Some bugs are blocking completion of the mission system which the AI team requires support from the LA Engineering department to resolve. However, LA Engineering are currently closing out their remaining tasks for milestone reviews before they are able to provide support for this.
ETA is 19th July (was 30th June)

RENDER TO TEXTURE
Various other requirements for this system have been discovered in the course of development that were not originally apparent, but are required for building a robust and scalable system for the future.
New ETA is currently being scoped out based on our internal review findings

PHYSICS SERIALIZATION
All work for this feature is currently undergoing a thorough code review between some of the Lead Engineers due to the complexity of the work. So far the review is going well, but is probably not going to be complete until early next week.
ETA is 3rd July (was 30th June)


See LINE 288 of the Diff. Remember back when I reported that the internal milestone schedule wasn't the same as the public one?

Also, this cracks me up:

LAST WEEK:

Quote
Delayed due to unforeseen shortage in resources.
ETA is 17th July (was 21st June)

THIS WEEK

Quote
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 25th July (was 17 July)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on June 30, 2017, 03:47:39 PM
So, they ran out of money to make it until their Citizencon and had no option to get a(nother) normal loan. So they took extreme measures by securing a new loan that is covered by a tax rebate. They either wanted a loan as big as the tax rebate, a loan larger than the tax rebate or the bank saw troubles no matter what (or quite possible, all three reasons apply) and so the bank decided to ask for *everything* as a collateral. Just 2B on the safe side.

Seems to me that on Citizencon, RSI/CIG needs to raise at least enough money to make the required payback, even better would be the whole loan sum and the best would be to even top that and make enough money to make it until the tax rebate. Since this is not very likely, I really would like to know how Citizencon goes and how that effects everything. A bad Citizencon probably means Game Over I think. I doubt there are lots of people left who still will fall for everything CIG puts out there. They've been tricked enough now and the latest events with the loan etc. are now effecting even some of the most hardcore backers. It's killing me by now  :supaburn:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 01, 2017, 02:00:10 AM
So, they ran out of money to make it until their Citizencon and had no option to get a(nother) normal loan. So they took extreme measures by securing a new loan that is covered by a tax rebate. They either wanted a loan as big as the tax rebate, a loan larger than the tax rebate or the bank saw troubles no matter what (or quite possible, all three reasons apply) and so the bank decided to ask for *everything* as a collateral. Just 2B on the safe side.

Seems to me that on Citizencon, RSI/CIG needs to raise at least enough money to make the required payback, even better would be the whole loan sum and the best would be to even top that and make enough money to make it until the tax rebate. Since this is not very likely, I really would like to know how Citizencon goes and how that effects everything. A bad Citizencon probably means Game Over I think. I doubt there are lots of people left who still will fall for everything CIG puts out there. They've been tricked enough now and the latest events with the loan etc. are now effecting even some of the most hardcore backers. It's killing me by now  :supaburn:

I think that by the end of this year they need to make enough $ to cover their operating costs for another 12 months.

They will be hoping that whatever they release or promise to release will generate enough sales.

As someone else has mentioned, moons might mean selling ground installations for Backers.   I am no expert but I would have thought you could knock them up fairly cheaply and quickly.

Don't underestimate the power of the sunk cost fallacy.  Any whiff of progress and plenty of the Backers lap it up and off they go for another 6 months.

The writing is on the wall but they could slip in (documentation) that whatever they release is the MVP (hoping Backers don't notice much) and carry on till the ship goes down.

If they don't make enough by the end of 2017 they will be left with trying to limp their way to next years major funding rounds or doing even more drastic public stuff - selling more JPEGS and eventually asking for Backer help to save the project.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on July 01, 2017, 07:49:30 AM
So, they ran out of money to make it until their Citizencon and had no option to get a(nother) normal loan. So they took extreme measures by securing a new loan that is covered by a tax rebate. They either wanted a loan as big as the tax rebate, a loan larger than the tax rebate or the bank saw troubles no matter what (or quite possible, all three reasons apply) and so the bank decided to ask for *everything* as a collateral. Just 2B on the safe side.

Seems to me that on Citizencon, RSI/CIG needs to raise at least enough money to make the required payback, even better would be the whole loan sum and the best would be to even top that and make enough money to make it until the tax rebate. Since this is not very likely, I really would like to know how Citizencon goes and how that effects everything. A bad Citizencon probably means Game Over I think. I doubt there are lots of people left who still will fall for everything CIG puts out there. They've been tricked enough now and the latest events with the loan etc. are now effecting even some of the most hardcore backers. It's killing me by now  :supaburn:

I think that by the end of this year they need to make enough $ to cover their operating costs for another 12 months.

They will be hoping that whatever they release or promise to release will generate enough sales.

As someone else has mentioned, moons might mean selling ground installations for Backers.   I am no expert but I would have thought you could knock them up fairly cheaply and quickly.

Don't underestimate the power of the sunk cost fallacy.  Any whiff of progress and plenty of the Backers lap it up and off they go for another 6 months.

The writing is on the wall but they could slip in (documentation) that whatever they release is the MVP (hoping Backers don't notice much) and carry on till the ship goes down.

If they don't make enough by the end of 2017 they will be left with trying to limp their way to next years major funding rounds or doing even more drastic public stuff - selling more JPEGS and eventually asking for Backer help to save the project.

By the look of Sandi's cleavage which she is showing more and more each ATV seems to indicate they are desperate.... :laugh: :laugh:

I will not underestimate the power of moron backer's wallets, whatever they release as 3.0 is guaranteed to bring great funding. its 2016 all over, same deceit  but trust me it will work like a charm. chris will come on stage and wave his hands show some ppt to blind moron backers and they will be fooled.  they spend thousands to attend citizenconn, dont u think they will give much more to keep the taps running..
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 02, 2017, 05:20:09 AM
I think that by the end of this year they need to make enough $ to cover their operating costs for another 12 months.

How so? Please explain that math to me.

They are averaging about $36m a year. And by the SQ42 financials for 2016, they spending about $2m a month means that worldwide, they have to be burning through $3m.

So it is now Q3/17, and even if they made the same amount as last year, how does that carry them another 12 months, if their spending rate remains constant?

Also, from the funding spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI), new citizen count is way down.

1H2014: $11,838,147 pledged and 145,210 new Citizens (2014: $32,933,205 and 361,200)
1H2015: $16,055,646 pledged and 210,197 new Citizens (2015: $35,961,202 and 433,453)
1H2016: $12,400,064 pledged and 264,240 new Citizens (2016: $36,100,538 and 565,120)
1H2017: $12,669,915 pledged and 129,036 new Citizens
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 03, 2017, 11:25:14 AM
https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/881908567749558274
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 05, 2017, 04:33:46 AM
#neverforget that all of this was pure and utter nonsense, and lies.

- Chris Roberts, 10 for the chairman E62. 08/03/2015

ps: Start at 07:52

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 05, 2017, 04:45:14 AM
Arena Commander + Star Marine: where is everybody? (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6l9gk6/arena_commander_star_marine_where_is_everybody/)

Everyone's gone to the Rapture because they're still waiting for the 3.0 Jesus Patch.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Mehlan on July 05, 2017, 09:27:34 PM
  Notice the Sq42 '2016', changed last minute EoY 2016 to '2017'  is now, supposedly going to get a 'schedule' "sooner or later".

This after claiming it was 'greybox or better' and that all 'assets' for SQ42 would be 'complete by the end of 2016'...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 06, 2017, 01:22:22 PM
Pure and utter bollocks. All of it.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on July 07, 2017, 08:37:48 AM
You have to wonder what happens after this.

I mean, there's a limited number of outcomes here:

1) Everything releases and it's glorious, a game that sets the standard for the next ten years. (probability:  :smuggo: Can't go below zero percent, man)
2) SC releases, but the associated other component games -- Star Marine, SQ42 -- are delayed. (probability: Extremely doubtful. Don't bet the rent money)
3) MVP release of all components. Somehow holds together. (probability: Possible, but unlikely as hell)
4) MVP release of SC only, SQ42 and SM are vaporware. (probability: Better than #3, and in my opinion, best possible scenario at this point for CR.)
5) Total collapse, a la so many other big dreams. (probability: #crocodiledundee. 'Better than average'.)
6) Total collapse and legal actions filed. (probability: less than #5 but still in the cards)

If SC releases per outcomes 1 or 2, the only real losers are the folks who've been hammering the game verbally. I expect we'll all eat a big plate of crow, with ketchup. However, I just don't see that happening.

The other outcomes are varying levels of suck for CR and CIG, regardless. Releasing a game in a state closer to, say, Big Rigs: Over The Mountain Racing than Fallout 4 is not going to do their bottom line a lick of good. And you have to have income to fund continuing development, patches, DLC, etc. So outcomes 3 and 4 are, to quote Darkest Dungeon, 'the slow death, unforeseen, unforgiving'.

Outcomes 5 and 6 should end CR's career. It would be an implosion that should make the Daikatana and Duke Nukem Forever debacles look tame in comparison. Any studio that hired him or his buddies on should have their heads checked for injuries.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2017, 01:16:20 PM
#6
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
Yup, as I wrote in my AtV analysis (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5501), they're recycling shit again.

(https://s15.postimg.org/hchy7cl4b/recycled_footage.gif)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2017, 02:57:30 PM
Star Citizen vs Elite Dangerous, zoom to space

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=QPC3ybZoWyQ&start1=55&video2=0jE7UhIyRnA&start2=0 (http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=QPC3ybZoWyQ&start1=55&video2=0jE7UhIyRnA&start2=0)

LOL!!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on July 07, 2017, 04:28:06 PM
Something I also find super weird is CIGs continuing trumpeting of their mission giver. Like, it's a person that you talk to that gives you quests. This sort of thing has been around for decades. Yet they seem really excited that they're going to have a whole TWO (???) of them in 3.0. It's bizarre.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2017, 05:58:24 PM
07/07 schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) is out. Everything pushed from 08/10 to 08/25 (just in time for GamesCom). Analysis coming later.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/883484558620073984

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/883474691889016832
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 07, 2017, 06:44:39 PM
LOL!! No way this is released on by Aug 25th.  :bahgawd:

07/07/17 Schedule Report (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report)

06/30/17 - 07/07/17 Diff (http://www.mergely.com/l7XQUDfW/?wl=1)

COMPLETED

Quote
SURFACE OUTPOSTS LIGHTING
ITEM 2.0 SHIP CONVERSION – PART 2 (Feature Complete. Bug fixing in progress.)
DOORS & AIRLOCKS (Feature Complete for 3.0.0. Bugfixing in progress.*)
HINT SYSTEM (Feature Complete for 3.0.0. Bugfixing & polish in progress.)
PHYSICS SERIALIZATION (Code Complete. Bug fixing in progress.)

DELAYED

Quote
DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)
We are adding the planet Delamar and the landing zone, Levski
There are currently issues with the room system markup that need to be revisited by the Design team to be fixed.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)

INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
The inventory will offer a way to manage the cargo and commodities that are being carried by the ships a player owns.
Date will remain connected to the UI team’s progress on the inventory.
ETA is 14th July (was 3rd July)

ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER
The LA Engineering team is currently busy supporting the item 2.0 ship conversion and the UI team with the implementation of their features, their support is required for this particular bug so we had to wait until they were available, resulting in a delay.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)

ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
LA Engineering has identified additional tasks needed to support persistence and netcode.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)

ITEM 2.0 MULTI FUNCTION DISPLAYS
The code side of this is now complete and is now down to UI Art to implement.
ETA is 11th July (was 7th July)

PERSONAL MANAGER APP
Further polish work is needed to implement a profile selection and create a pop-up to select between loadout slots, but requires a little more time to complete.
ETA is 10th July (was 3rd July)

CARGO MANIFEST APP
Delayed due to team’s focus on priority tasks for internal milestone review.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)

INVENTORY SYSTEM
Delayed due to team focusing on this week’s milestone review.
ETA is 14th July (was 7th July)

STARMAP APP
The UI team have now broken down the feedback from last week’s review and adjusted their estimate.
ETA is 18th July (was 7th July)

COMMS SYSTEM UI
Delayed due to knock-on effect of the delay to the inventory system work.
ETA is 25th July (was 18th July)

RENDER TO TEXTURE
Additional requirements were discovered in development that were not originally apparent, but are required for building a robust and scale-able system for the future.
ETA is 27th July

PENDING

Quote
- MISSION GIVERS
- DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)
- INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
- ROVER AND DRAGONFLY IN SHIPS
- ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER
- ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
- ITEM 2.0 MULTI FUNCTION DISPLAYS
- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION
- PERSONAL MANAGER APP
- CARGO MANIFEST APP
- VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP
- SHIP SELECTOR APP & INSURANCE CLAIM
- INVENTORY SYSTEM
- STARMAP APP
- COMMS SYSTEM UI
- MISSION SYSTEM
- RENDER TO TEXTURE
- VOLUMETRIC FOG (still schedule to be completed on June 9th)
- APOCALYPSE ARMS SCOURGE RAIL GUN (still schedule to be completed on June 9th)

MARKED AS COMPLETED BUT UNDERGOING "BUG FIXES" AND "POLISHING"

Quote
- INSURANCE
- DOORS & AIRLOCKS
- CARGO
- KIOSK SUPPORT
- REPAIR
- HINT SYSTEM
- MISSION MANAGER APP
- PHYSICS SERIALIZATION
- ITEM 2.0 SHIP CONVERSION – PART 2
- ARROWHEAD SNIPER RIFLE
- KSAR DEVASTATOR-12 SHOTGUN

Courtesy of Nicholas over on SA (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1435#post474147790)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 08, 2017, 12:36:57 PM
Once again, sources are telling me that the performance issues seen in the AtV video, are thus far insurmountable, and that they don't know how this 3.0 patch is ever getting released without that being addressed.

More talk about it possibly ending up being #justanotherlevel via a menu option.

Claim that if they were to release 3.0 within the "next 90 days", that it would be an unmitigated disaster.

I hope they release it - at least to Evocati (so I can get my hands on it).

CryEngine is legendary for its performance issues in pure fps games. We've seen in the 2.6.x builds just how horrendous it can be with all these fidelitious models in it. Now go and add million plus polygonal planets.

But croberts is arrogant enough to release 3.0, regardless of performance issues, then advocate to backers that they should upgrade their machines to run it. Most of them probably will. The rest will put in for a refund.

And it doesn't matter what state the deliverables are in, they're just going off a checklist now in order to not run afoul of liability issues. As long as they deliver an item promised, regardless of state or condition, they're covered. That's why Hangar, Arena Commander, Star Marine (LOL!!) and similar, aren't getting frequent updates. In fact, the last 2.6.3 build was back on April 7th.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 08, 2017, 01:10:25 PM
Once again, sources are telling me that the performance issues seen in the AtV video, are thus far insurmountable, and that they don't know how this 3.0 patch is ever getting released without that being addressed.

More talk about it possibly ending up being #justanotherlevel via a menu option.

Claim that if they were to release 3.0 within the "next 90 days", that it would be an unmitigated disaster.

I hope they release it - at least to Evocati (so I can get my hands on it).

CryEngine is legendary for its performance issues in pure fps games. We've seen in the 2.6.x builds just how horrendous it can be with all these fidelitious models in it. Now go and add million plus polygonal planets.

But croberts is arrogant enough to release 3.0, regardless of performance issues, then advocate to backers that they should upgrade their machines to run it. Most of them probably will. The rest will put in for a refund.
Now just imagine those planet meshes have to rotate (on Pi) and orbit (also on Pi) while calculating 64Bit coordinates (position, rotation) for every entity on the panet ... and now share this over the network through UDP ... (little hint it will lag, rubberband and jerk all over the place even if the whole architecture is a gigabit LAN)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on July 08, 2017, 01:22:47 PM
Remember when Crysis released, and it seemed like you needed a computer off Star Trek's Enterprise to run it properly?

Assuming the code compiles, you're gonna need two of those just to run the blasted thing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Lir on July 08, 2017, 03:03:35 PM
Most of them probably will. The rest will put in for a refund.

Hello Derek;
While I agree with you I still wonder how many real physical backers there are left beside the disabled brains obeyfirst-ish and alike  :shrug:
Also please whoever FED agent reading this, put SG and OF into jail where they belong please. In my opinion, not Derek's for the retards (shitizens) there that don't make any difference. Geez do I have to write this.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 08, 2017, 07:22:37 PM
With all this data I think we can all work out a few similar ways the conference scam season is going to go this year.

I am beginning to think that there will be no 3.0 until after both conferences and we might see something purporting to be 3.0 by Q2 2018 (if they milk enough in JPEG sales on the back of some ropey stitched together bullshit presentation and lies from CRoberts about needing more time to get it right)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 09, 2017, 05:49:41 AM
Once again, sources are telling me that the performance issues seen in the AtV video, are thus far insurmountable, and that they don't know how this 3.0 patch is ever getting released without that being addressed.

More talk about it possibly ending up being #justanotherlevel via a menu option.

Claim that if they were to release 3.0 within the "next 90 days", that it would be an unmitigated disaster.

I hope they release it - at least to Evocati (so I can get my hands on it).

CryEngine is legendary for its performance issues in pure fps games. We've seen in the 2.6.x builds just how horrendous it can be with all these fidelitious models in it. Now go and add million plus polygonal planets.

But croberts is arrogant enough to release 3.0, regardless of performance issues, then advocate to backers that they should upgrade their machines to run it. Most of them probably will. The rest will put in for a refund.
Now just imagine those planet meshes have to rotate (on Pi) and orbit (also on Pi) while calculating 64Bit coordinates (position, rotation) for every entity on the panet ... and now share this over the network through UDP ... (little hint it will lag, rubberband and jerk all over the place even if the whole architecture is a gigabit LAN)

I don't believe they're rotating. They're static spheres. Heck, they can't get the ring on Port Olisar to work right, and they're going to rotate a planet? LOL!!  :laugh:

Most of them probably will. The rest will put in for a refund.

Hello Derek;
While I agree with you I still wonder how many real physical backers there are left beside the disabled brains obeyfirst-ish and alike  :shrug:
Also please whoever FED agent reading this, put SG and OF into jail where they belong please. In my opinion, not Derek's for the retards (shitizens) there that don't make any difference. Geez do I have to write this.

According to the data for the recent sales, even though we know that the funding chart is inaccurate, there aren't that many left. This is why they're not making enough money, and now have to continue taking out loans.

Oh, we already burned (got them banned) several Reddit accounts, including obey-the-fist. By the time this is all over, they're all likely to be banned. Especially if they are still around when the final collapse comes. Those guys can't help themselves; so it's only a matter of time before they step off a cliff, and get their accounts burned.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 09, 2017, 06:00:28 AM
With all this data I think we can all work out a few similar ways the conference scam season is going to go this year.

I am beginning to think that there will be no 3.0 until after both conferences and we might see something purporting to be 3.0 by Q2 2018 (if they milk enough in JPEG sales on the back of some ropey stitched together bullshit presentation and lies from CRoberts about needing more time to get it right)

No way they stretch it that long. No way in hell. It's a huge risk and the whole thing will collapse. They've already squandered all backer good will.

I think that if 3.0 isn't ready, that they will release something to Evocati either before or during GamesCom (Aug 22-26), ignore the performance issues etc - just so they can keep the hype going for a bit long.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on July 09, 2017, 04:25:52 PM
Jesus TF christ...have you all seen the White Knight Brigades that've just shown up on the SC reddit to defend the latest 3.0 delay??

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6m3fmc/amid_the_recent_influx_of_idiocy_here_surrounding/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6m3fmc/amid_the_recent_influx_of_idiocy_here_surrounding/)

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6m6i6x/as_many_still_doesnt_seem_to_know_about_this_the/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6m6i6x/as_many_still_doesnt_seem_to_know_about_this_the/)

I know I shouldn't be surprised anymore by this, but it's really some next level religious devotion on display.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 10, 2017, 05:40:58 AM
Yeah, it's hilarious. But it's their enclave, so it makes sense. Most of those, if you look at their post history, only post about Star Citizen. So that goes toward the notion that some of them are in paid social media accounts.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 10, 2017, 05:57:23 PM
LOL!! Never forget  :bahgawd:

Star Citizen - CitizenCon 2014 Persistent Universe Demo


Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 11, 2017, 07:39:50 AM
That's as hilarious as it looks

Original 2017 schedule

(http://i.imgur.com/LrWWjPp.jpg)

July 2017 schedule

(http://i.imgur.com/rz7X9m9.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Darklegend1 on July 14, 2017, 12:50:05 PM
Saw today's ATV in that the guy said they are making characters to be used in SC as well as SQ42...

but i recall chris saying that sq42 is all grey box or better so how does this add up..  :wtf:

are they preparing characters for part 2 and 3 of sq42 :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 14, 2017, 03:20:23 PM
Saw today's ATV in that the guy said they are making characters to be used in SC as well as SQ42...

but i recall chris saying that sq42 is all grey box or better so how does this add up..  :wtf:

are they preparing characters for part 2 and 3 of sq42 :laugh: :laugh:

It is just one lie on top of another... :wtchris:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 14, 2017, 06:53:11 PM
LOL!! latest schedule is out.

At a glance, half the shit (render to texture, mission giver etc) is delayed, but the aim date of 08-25-17, somehow remains unchanged.

God damn LOL!!

Of course there is a new ship sale coming up on July 21st, along with GamesCom around the corner Aug 22-26, so they're not going to touch that schedule to update it with the real release date until the last minute. Like always.

Anyway....

Schedule: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

Diff: https://www.diffchecker.com/91Bl6TQY

Completed: 2
Delayed: 7
New Tasks / Refactoring: 3
Remaining: 21
Furthest ETA: Aug 10th

Quote
Completed

Personal Manager App
Klaus and Werner Arclight Pistol

Quote
Delayed

Inventory System Support
ETA is 20th July (was 14th July)

Entity Owner Manager
ETA is 20th July (was 14th July)

Item 2.0 Multi Function Displays
UI have been implementing these screens while supporting other features, so QA can test each area as soon as possible. While this benefits us from a testing point of view, it has resulted in an overall delay in completion.
ETA is 18th July (was 11th July)

Cargo Manifest App
ETA is 20th July (was 14th July)

Inventory System
Progress has been affected due to the work on the Search Feature.
ETA is 20th July (was 14th July)

Mission System
We are continuing to build on the mission system AI in order for design to implement more missions for inclusion in 3.0.0
ETA is 24th July (was 19th June)

Render to Texture
This system is still in progress, but due to its overall size and some of the other features for 3.0.0 that require Render to Texture, teams are using the system as soon as they are able, which means that Render to Texture is requiring bug fixing support while it’s being developed which results in further delays of the system as a whole. The date below does also take dedicated bug fixing time into account.
ETA is 10th August (was 27th July)

Quote
NEW TASKS

RSI Aurora
This is an updated version of the Aurora. We previously didn’t think that we would have the time to complete this rework for 3.0.0, however, with the movement of our release dates we are now able to include this rework with 3.0.0.
ETA is 21st July

Gemini L86 Pistol
Rework of the legacy weapon.
With the moving of our release date, this weapon rework has been signed off to be included for the 3.0.0 release.
ETA is 28th July

Behring P4-AR
Rework of the legacy weapon.
With the moving of our release date, this weapon rework has been signed off to be included for the 3.0.0 release.
ETA is 19th July

Quote
REMAINING

- MISSION GIVERS
- DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)
- INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
- ROVER AND DRAGONFLY IN SHIPS
- ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER
- ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
- ITEM 2.0 MULTI FUNCTION DISPLAYS
- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION
- CARGO MANIFEST APP
- VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP
- SHIP SELECTOR APP & INSURANCE CLAIM
- INVENTORY SYSTEM
- STARMAP APP
- COMMS SYSTEM UI
- MISSION SYSTEM
- RENDER TO TEXTURE
- VOLUMETRIC FOG (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- APOCALYPSE ARMS SCOURGE RAIL GUN (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- RSI AURORA
- GEMINI L86 PISTOL
- BEHRING P4-AR

Quote
July 7th Schedule Report

Completed: 5
Delayed: 11
Remaining: 19

Quote
July 14th Schedule Report

Completed: 2
Delayed: 7
New Tasks / Refactoring: 3
Remaining: 21
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: David-2 on July 14, 2017, 08:14:05 PM
Render to Texture

This system is still in progress, but due to its overall size and some of the other features for 3.0.0 that require Render to Texture, teams are using the system as soon as they are able, which means that Render to Texture is requiring bug fixing support while it’s being developed which results in further delays of the system as a whole. The date below does also take dedicated bug fixing time into account.
ETA is 10th August (was 27th July)

How odd!  Instead of this major feature coming in completely perfectly, the way CR expects it, it unaccountably has bugs, for which, of course, the necessary time to fix them wasn't planned for, because, as I said, it was expected to be perfect in every way.  There's nothing to be done for it except push out the completion date for this item; completely unexpected delays in a single task are unfortunate, but will have no effect on the overall schedule because the team is just that good.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 15, 2017, 04:24:38 AM
If 3.0 is playable before Gamescom it'll be a miracle. Wonder if the moons will only be available via a menu with no seamless landings...

 :lol: if so.

We'll hear the dreams shattering from here.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on July 15, 2017, 07:58:37 AM
If moons had a loading screen, be it a short "your ship is entering atmosphere" cinematic I would probably be heartened. It means they realized they bit off more than they can chew and started doing things in the name of making a product instead of blowing all the money on R&D with nothing to show for it beyond tech demos.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2017, 09:59:27 AM
You guys haven't been keep up with the latest statements from the GameStar article, have you? Oh boy.

Title Summary (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nau6m/gamestar_titelstory_summary/)

The Technique Behind Star Citizen (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nc6j6/gamestar_the_technique_behind_star_citizen/)

So they're not promising 5-10 systems "at launch". So much for...

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe

(http://i.imgur.com/bPQp0zQ.png) (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/universe)

The project is FUBAR
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 15, 2017, 12:57:15 PM
Gamestar visited Foundry 42 Frankfurt to play a preview of Alpha 3.0

A preview of an Alpha  :lol:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 15, 2017, 01:42:37 PM
Gamestar visited Foundry 42 Frankfurt to play a preview of Alpha 3.0

A preview of an Alpha  :lol:

... alphaception      :vince:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 15, 2017, 05:16:38 PM
Gamestar visited Foundry 42 Frankfurt to play a preview of Alpha 3.0

A preview of an Alpha  :lol:

Yeah, we're all laughing at that.  :laugh:  :lol:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 15, 2017, 06:10:32 PM
The penny is definitely starting to drop for more and more people.

The Shitizens keep moving the goal posts wider and wider as the spec gets smaller and further away.   

But more and more Backers are calling it for what it is.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 16, 2017, 11:21:11 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nnjau/thank_you_cig_for_insurance_makes_sense/

Insurance, a game mechanic that will lock you out of the game with the possibility of paying real $$$ to overcome this mechanic (this includes LTI).

I stopped counting the faults that are within this mechanic. How can any game developer think for a second that this is something you want to have in your game?
This is far more evil than everything that EA or Ubi could have ever thought of.

Sure I can play without a ship, I could go shopping or join a crew mopping division (and try to destroy the other players ship from the inside because I got bored while waiting). Or just pay the bill and get my ship back faster.

You've died
- Please insert coin -
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 17, 2017, 03:39:50 AM
The Germans aren't happy with you Derek.

http://www.pcgames.de/Star-Citizen-Spiel-3481/News/Derek-Smart-Gamestar-Titelstory-Propaganda-Twitter-1233287/

To the war mobile!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 17, 2017, 05:01:50 AM
The Germans aren't happy with you Derek.

http://www.pcgames.de/Star-Citizen-Spiel-3481/News/Derek-Smart-Gamestar-Titelstory-Propaganda-Twitter-1233287/

To the war mobile!

Yeah, I know.  :bahgawd:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 17, 2017, 05:18:31 AM
The Germans aren't happy with you Derek.

http://www.pcgames.de/Star-Citizen-Spiel-3481/News/Derek-Smart-Gamestar-Titelstory-Propaganda-Twitter-1233287/

To the war mobile!

Yeah, I know.  :bahgawd:
Wow, german magazine is directly attacking a private person in america for personal opinions on twitter ... btw this is sueable.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 17, 2017, 07:20:33 AM
The Germans aren't happy with you Derek.

http://www.pcgames.de/Star-Citizen-Spiel-3481/News/Derek-Smart-Gamestar-Titelstory-Propaganda-Twitter-1233287/

To the war mobile!

Yeah, I know.  :bahgawd:
Wow, german magazine is directly attacking a private person in america for personal opinions on twitter ... btw this is sueable.

And it must have taken him about 3 minutes to write it v the in depth analysis Derek does.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 17, 2017, 07:28:50 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nnjau/thank_you_cig_for_insurance_makes_sense/

Insurance, a game mechanic that will lock you out of the game with the possibility of paying real $$$ to overcome this mechanic (this includes LTI).

I stopped counting the faults that are within this mechanic. How can any game developer think for a second that this is something you want to have in your game?
This is far more evil than everything that EA or Ubi could have ever thought of.

Sure I can play without a ship, I could go shopping or join a crew mopping division (and try to destroy the other players ship from the inside because I got bored while waiting). Or just pay the bill and get my ship back faster.

You've died
- Please insert coin -

And even the most basic forms of griefing can expose the bullshit expectations of backers and lack of knowledge CR has of MMOs etc and how a large percent of the playerbase play them.

I remember  that crappy demo they did one conference where the Shitizens were ecstatic at seeing a ship land on a station and some supposed FPS SM gameplay. 

Some of us pointed out the $250 Connie was ripe for stealing and it wouldnt have lasted 20 seconds on the deck, unlocked before someone knicked it and sold it on for real world $$$ or crashed it into someone else's ship and left them with the repair bill....

Scams and "greifing" or just Mercenary activities would get a lot more creative than this ruse that took 5 seconds to come up with.



Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 17, 2017, 07:41:58 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6nnjau/thank_you_cig_for_insurance_makes_sense/

Insurance, a game mechanic that will lock you out of the game with the possibility of paying real $$$ to overcome this mechanic (this includes LTI).

I stopped counting the faults that are within this mechanic. How can any game developer think for a second that this is something you want to have in your game?
This is far more evil than everything that EA or Ubi could have ever thought of.

Sure I can play without a ship, I could go shopping or join a crew mopping division (and try to destroy the other players ship from the inside because I got bored while waiting). Or just pay the bill and get my ship back faster.

You've died
- Please insert coin -

And even the most basic forms of griefing can expose the bullshit expectations of backers and lack of knowledge CR has of MMOs etc and how a large percent of the playerbase play them.

I remember  that crappy demo they did one conference where the Shitizens were ecstatic at seeing a ship land on a station and some supposed FPS SM gameplay. 

Some of us pointed out the $250 Connie was ripe for stealing and it wouldnt have lasted 20 seconds on the deck, unlocked before someone knicked it and sold it on for real world $$$ or crashed it into someone else's ship and left them with the repair bill....

Scams and "greifing" or just Mercenary activities would get a lot more creative than this ruse that took 5 seconds to come up with.
And don't forget the bugs :)
Killed by a bug ... wait a week for replacement or 2 weeks for CS answer ... well or pay

WoW was a success because they got rid of all "McQuaid" stuff of EverQuest Live/2, like corpse runs, camping etc.
Now we have Star Citizen with a plethora of new ways to punish the player for playing the game.
(and 1000 ways to get griefed)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 17, 2017, 08:13:17 AM
So I'm going to assume 3.0 will drop in some form at some point. I'm also going to assume they will have seamless space to moon transitions and a few things to do whilst on the surfaces.

There's going to be a lot of media attention if they do. There's going to be more funding because of it. They're going to be given the license to carry on as they have been doing. No repercussions. No accountability. No reasons to change.

Is nobody going to try the law with this company? In fact didn't you start legal proceedings against CIG Derek? I seem to remember a tweet saying you had.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Flashwit on July 17, 2017, 08:54:53 AM
He can't really start any legal proceedings. They refunded him so he doesn't really have any standing to sue or anything.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 17, 2017, 09:46:01 AM
So I'm going to assume 3.0 will drop in some form at some point. I'm also going to assume they will have seamless space to moon transitions and a few things to do whilst on the surfaces.

There's going to be a lot of media attention if they do. There's going to be more funding because of it. They're going to be given the license to carry on as they have been doing. No repercussions. No accountability. No reasons to change.

Not that simple. They've squandered away whatever backer cred they had. So it's going to be mostly the hardcore backers who are going to be left standing after 3.0 is out.

I have no reason to believe that 3.0 is going to change the game's perception because 2.0 (PU debut in Q4/2015) and 2.6 (Star Marine debut in Q4/2016) were the major highlights like the upcoming 3.0 which only has those moons/planetoids as the highlight. Player engagement on the game is non-existent if you go by the number of backer numbers and those actually playing the various modules.

Sure, they will make some money over 3.0, but they've made money in the past, blew through all of it, are in debt etc. So there is no reason to believe that 3.0 is going change any of that.

Quote
Is nobody going to try the law with this company? In fact didn't you start legal proceedings against CIG Derek? I seem to remember a tweet saying you had.

Only investors and backers have that power. I don't, as I don't have "standing" in any lawsuit against them. I do have a case for defamation against CIG and Chris Roberts, but I have no interest in pursuing that because it would be too distracting, and cost (my liability insurance won't cover it, unless they sue or counter-sue) too much by the time we get around to the Star Citizen part.

So all we can do now is just wait, watch, and laugh.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 17, 2017, 09:58:35 AM
I'm guessing the 3.0 will be another disappointment that will open a lot of backers' eyes. Most of them will (finally) see the replay of last year and will not invest any further. The funding collapses and that's the end of CIG. Those too blind to see will not keep CIG afloat.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 17, 2017, 10:03:04 AM
I'm guessing the 3.0 will be another disappointment that will open a lot of backers' eyes. Most of them will (finally) see the replay of last year and will not invest any further. The funding collapses and that's teh end of CIG. Those too blind to see will not keep CIG afloat.

Hard to say. Some backers are like Deer caught in a car's headlights. 3.0 will drop, they will check it out for a few days, and move on to wait for 3.1 (netcode!).

The problem is, will 3.0 be enough to prevent a refund run on the bank? Right, they're using new money to refund old money. That's just not sustainable in the long term.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 17, 2017, 03:23:26 PM

Only investors and backers have that power. I don't, as I don't have "standing" in any lawsuit against them. I do have a case for defamation against CIG and Chris Roberts, but I have no interest in pursuing that because it would be too distracting, and cost (my liability insurance won't cover it, unless they sue or counter-sue) too much by the time we get around to the Star Citizen part.

So all we can do now is just wait, watch, and laugh.

But not a single backer has tested their luck? None of the whales, of which surely some, have enough money to burn and have crossed their patience threshold? It seems strange. There is anger and disposable income, why no court? What would have to be proven from a case to achieve anything?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that for any relevant consumer case they'd have to prove that development on the game has stalled/stopped. If that is the case, it would be an interesting argument between videos and videos of apparent game development versus content sparse incremental updates for a long time.

It just seems very strange that it hasn't happened or is happening, not that we'd necessarily know about it I suppose.

Have you said you knew of cases ongoing against CIG then, if not actually made by by yourself? There's a definite memory of you asserting to such in some way in my mind. Maybe I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: HycoCam on July 17, 2017, 04:28:53 PM
What would be the reasoning for the lawsuit?  CIG isn't using their employees like you want them too? 

There needs to be a basis for a civil lawsuit--some kind of damages.  If you are a backer and unhappy with CIG--CIG right now simply gives you back your money.  Once CIG gives you back your money--there is no civil case.  Now once CIG runs out of money and/or announces they have released a game and will no longer provide refunds--that is when we might start seeing civil cases.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 17, 2017, 04:55:00 PM
At this point in time, a lot of Backers don't actually want a game, they are paying for an "experience" and CIG know it.

Star Citizen and SQ42 are just ideas and paying for JPEGS lets you pretend you are part of a new frontier in PC gaming and can talk about being in the club.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 17, 2017, 05:43:34 PM
What would be the reasoning for the lawsuit?  CIG isn't using their employees like you want them too? 

There needs to be a basis for a civil lawsuit--some kind of damages.  If you are a backer and unhappy with CIG--CIG right now simply gives you back your money.  Once CIG gives you back your money--there is no civil case.  Now once CIG runs out of money and/or announces they have released a game and will no longer provide refunds--that is when we might start seeing civil cases.

That's correct. Any complaint that is filed, they can refund and end the case. HOWEVER, if the person wants to continue, they can insist that they were promised something in return (e.g. a game, financials etc) and they would be right. The question is, if after you got your money back, why would you want to waste money to continue the lawsuit.

And in all of that, it has to go through arbitration anyway. The only time this goes into open court, is via State of Fed action. Sure there is a way that a backer can get around the arbitration clause, but it's not easy.

The major problem is only going to come when they can no longer do refunds.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 17, 2017, 10:10:25 PM
10 to 1 NPC/PC ratio the answer on everything!

Economy?
Players can't have any significant impact because the NPC system is a master in balancing the economy out - no matter what happens.

Griefing?
You will be unable to tell if the character is a player or a NPC so 90% of the time you'll be griefing NPCs! take this Goons!

Empty Space?
There will be so much NPC action and interaction that you have always something to do, basically the NPCs act like a player.

Multiplayer?
You can hire NPCs with their own personality they will act as a real person, they will betray, steal and climb out of cargo boxes.

Current active NPC count: 0 (soon to be 1)

... I wanna cry where is my comfort-me NPC ...

Epilogue
A few years ago I stopped reading the forums for a game in development when I found a thread that is just disillusional dreams.
In case of Star Citizen we used to read the stuff friday evenings for a laugh when we are getting drunk.
But now they reached a level where it physically hurts to read the stuff the backers are coming up in order to defend the project.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 18, 2017, 04:50:03 AM
None of that shit is ever going to happen. It's all dreams.  :bahgawd:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 18, 2017, 06:45:02 AM
The AWS service CIG are using have an element called 'GameLift' that amazon say allows latency dependant games to work well for up to millions of players. Sounds good. I'm guessing the truth isn't so simple though?

"Built on AWS’s proven computing environment, Amazon GameLift lets you scale high-performance game servers up and down to meet player demand. You pay only for the capacity you use, so you can get started whether you’re working on a new game idea or running a game with millions of players."

"Q. Does Amazon GameLift work for latency-intolerant games, such as first-person shooters? Does Amazon GameLift add latency to my game?

Amazon GameLift is designed to work for latency-intolerant games. Amazon GameLift introduces no additional latency during gameplay."

https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/faq/


CIG have been seen saying their technology is going to do things never been done before and that they can't go into specifics about how and what exactly they're doing. It's the make or break issue I feel. Content can be created. The laws of physics though...not so much.

It's crunch time for them. Survival on the line. 3.0 to 4.0. Over to you CIG, what you got?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 18, 2017, 07:17:18 AM
The AWS service CIG are using have an element called 'GameLift' that amazon say allows latency dependant games to work well for up to millions of players. Sounds good. I'm guessing the truth isn't so simple though?

"Built on AWS’s proven computing environment, Amazon GameLift lets you scale high-performance game servers up and down to meet player demand. You pay only for the capacity you use, so you can get started whether you’re working on a new game idea or running a game with millions of players."

"Q. Does Amazon GameLift work for latency-intolerant games, such as first-person shooters? Does Amazon GameLift add latency to my game?

Amazon GameLift is designed to work for latency-intolerant games. Amazon GameLift introduces no additional latency during gameplay."

https://aws.amazon.com/gamelift/faq/


CIG have been seen saying their technology is going to do things never been done before and that they can't go into specifics about how and what exactly they're doing. It's the make or break issue I feel. Content can be created. The laws of physics though...not so much.

It's crunch time for them. Survival on the line. 3.0 to 4.0. Over to you CIG, what you got?
AWS used to be expensive and slow due to all the "beginner features" that are implemnted, maybe now its just expensive ...
There is a reason why MMO games are 1-2 graphic generations behind - Video Lag - If a player lags on the client side - UDP still has to guess (UDP is guessing all the time thats how it works) what the player wants.
This will lead into a shitfest of Char Hopping, T-Posing, Fall through World, Physic Errors and Rubberbanding if there are many players with ever varying client FPS and input lags.

For Explanation:
The Captain has a 6000$ StarCitizenPowerMachine that manges to run the client on 30FPS+, his poor crew is playing on max 15FPS. This results in Graphic Lags for the crew, the UDP has to guess every 2nd frame what the crewclient wants in relation to the captain in 6DOF and always remember ... the floor isn't a floor it's just a 2D collider mesh - an error rate of 1cm will cause very funny stuff.

Edit: And I am pretty sure Amazon is reffering to games where you walk around and shoot things not stuff like "And the Spaceship will detonate, all parts are exploding with physics calculations and needed to be spread over the network cause a part could hit another spaceship and damage it".
Edit Edit: including the mug that was resting on the pool table in 64bit coordinates...
Edit Edit Edit: in a game where you have hours of motion capture how to carry a box in 3 different ways which snaps to a grid when dropped ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 18, 2017, 03:48:23 PM
Yeah, even that's being generous.

(http://i.imgur.com/PozHdqL.png)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 19, 2017, 07:42:13 AM
I posted this on SA. Just copying it here.

Quote
The Titanic posted:

My thoughts on landing and day night cycles:

CIG can pull off a day night cycle currently as well as a planet rotating (not orbiting anywhere, just spinning in place) by not requiring the ship to actually land. Just get close to the planet and you auto-land in a loading cutscene.

They can also time the FPS sun to the orbit sun pretty easily. Of course they should also be able to have the ring on their space station rotate easily too, so there's a good chance they'll fuck this up if they try it.

But a loading zone, planet rotation that doesn't require actual reentry, and an FPS day and night cycle could be very doable for their 3.0 stuff.

- Planet rotating. They can't do it because due to how CryEngine works, they would have to make the sphere an entity object - with a collider - and animated. Have you see the Port Olisar rings?

Probability of them doing it: 0%

- Planet orbiting. They can't do it because that would mean moving the spherical entity through the world. Which means adding a physics body to it.

Probability of them doing it: 0%

- Day and night cycle. They can do it in the editor as they have shown, because they are manipulating the light source manually. Doing that dynamically in the client is completely different ball game.

It's not trivial, and it will completely fuck up your lighting in both day and night cycles, requiring most of the object materials to be redone to compensate. I should know this because we ran through the same problem. We use SilverLining (and Triton for water) by http://sundog-soft.com/ (http://sundog-soft.com/) software because it was cheaper than doing it from scratch. Then we had to integrate it into our custom engine. It fucked up everything. And we had to redo a number of our asset materials. And we had to go back in a mess with the scene lighting because at some times at night, it was so very dark. Done right, you end up with results like the LoD day/night shots (http://lodgame.com/mediapage/).

Probability of them doing it: 50% (if they cheat instead of doing it correctly like SilverLining)

- Tying the TOD to the star

This is not needed as it's arbitrary and doesn't need to be mapped to any Sun. You just create a curve that's matched to your virtual day/night cycle. e.g. in LoD, a full day<->night cycle is 3hrs. But I can change that to anything I want. In fact, in the last server update, I made it 1hr so that we can continue to quickly test lighting issues in day or night without having to use our console cheat code to change the TOD.

Probability of them doing it: 0%

- Procedural world generation

There are two parts to this :

1) World Terrain

Involves creation of the world terrain (space or planet) using either 1) procedural generation or 2) handcrafting

No Man's Sky does 1

All my games use a combo of 1 & 2 depending on the game e.g. LoD has no procedural generation other than the ground terrain generated from pre-computed height map data

In my space/planetary combat games such as Battlecruiser/Universal Combat/Echo Squad, the entire world is data generated, while the planet/moon surfaces are procedurally generated from data. The POIs (star base etc) are hand-crafted in an editor, and placed in the desired locations.

In LoD, everything - aside from the ground terrain data - is handcrafted. The ground terrain data is generated from heightmaps which are stored on disk. That terrain is loaded into our editor so that the POIs can be placed where designed.

In SC, their SolEd tool is apparently used for them to design their world space to match what they have in the Star Map. All it does is say where things are. It doesn't actually generate anything. That data is stored on disk so that when the world is loaded, it knows where everything is located.

I have the same tool. It's called TED, is over 30 years (I shit you not) old, and looks like this (showing the Jupiter region). All it does is allow the manual placement of objects (planet, moon, jump anomalies) so that when the world is loaded, those entities are then mapped by data files which determine how to handle them in real-time via procedural generation. That's all it does.

(http://imgur.com/8ZH6712.jpg)

2) World Assets

Involves placing assets in the world using either 1) procedural generation or 2) hand crafting

No Man's Sky does 1 & 2 . All my games use 1 & 2

My legacy games (Battlecruiser, Universal Combat, Echo Squad) which have space combat, use TED to create the space world, and PTE to handcraft POIs with pre-computed terrain. It looks like this.

(http://imgur.com/INDQoLr.jpg)

This editing tool not only allows you to setup and test things like weather, ToD etc, but it also allows the creation and placement of POIs anywhere on a planet, anywhere in the game world.

There is a full album with more shots here: http://imgur.com/a/KQ2Ii (http://imgur.com/a/KQ2Ii)

This entire world map you see below from Battlecruiser/Universal Combat series, was built using only those two tools. The engine does everything else in real-time.

(http://www.3000ad.com/downloads/ucce/appendix/images/maps/galaxy_map_links.jpg)

And because the client and server handle all this crap on-the-fly, there are no loading (other than disk access depending on where you are on the planet) times or performance issues to contend with.

As massive and complex as it is, not to mention having low visual fidelity due to age, you can download the latest version of Universal Combat CE right now on Steam, and see everything they're trying to do - besides the fps in ships/stations part - working just fine. Just like in ED (though it doesn't have planets).

And the beauty of it is that a lot of world object such as stations, starbases etc are totally scripted into the game world. This way they can be added/removed as-needed; something that you can't do with a world built with static geometry. For e.g. you can destroy any space station in BC/UC/ES games, but you can't do that in Star Citizen.

This Vimeo video shows what Universal Combat CE looks like with a single space region, complete with orbiting planet, station etc.


A few months back, I released the modding tools UCCE 3.0x (http://steamcommunity.com/app/345580/discussions/2/133259956013199736/). Even if you don't own the game, you can download it and check out the data files and tools.

STAR CITIZEN 3.0:

They are apparently using World Machine for their terrain height maps. There are several tutorials on the Internet showing how to create surface terrain in CryEngine.

The terrain data is generated on-the-fly using some procedural techniques for terrain relief, rocks, fauna etc. No way you're going to handcraft all that crap manually.

They have tools that also allows them to 'paint' terrain features, generate relief data, as well as repeating objects like rocks, fauna etc giving more control over POI areas.

As above, they are also manually adding POI assets (base, derelicts, mission data) in the editor.

The problem they are going to have is in performance and networking.

I predict that 3.0 is going to be an unmitigated disaster if they release it before year end. But they will, because they have no choice. They have a LOT riding on this one, and Spergs really think this is the 'one' that brings salvation & vindication to the flock.

None of this is rocket science or brain surgery. You just need to build the tech, along with an engine to power it. You can build engine tech  (e.g. see Outerra, Infinity Battlespace, Duel Universe etc) all day long, putting a game on top of it, is a whole different ball game.

And God help you if you put the cart before the horse, as they've done with Star Citizen - then your project is FUBAR. That's where they are now.

All they had to do was this:

1) Pick the right engine (not CryEngine) or build a custom engine from one that wasn't designed primarily for one type of game

2) Build the world editing tools for creating both space and planetary terrain

3) Build the space terrain so that the entire space world (as seen in the Star Map) is there

4) Build the space related missions and features

5) Build the planetary tech. Since this would be isolated from all of the above, it doesn't break continuity because, like what ED did, once you have it working, you LATER just edit your space world to handle planet entry into planets and moons

6) Build the planet related missions and features

But no, that was too easy, and they had an incompetent buffoon who hasn't worked in a dev team, let alone build a fucking game in almost two decades, at the helm. I would bet that, aside from Squadron 42 requiring ALL the tech they're building for Star Citizen, it too probably has planet based missions. Which is probably why they're now having to build this in 3.0, instead of fleshing out a "game", then adding that later. All this time could have been spent on 3-4 above to keep backers happy and dropping their knickers with each patch. Then you hit them with planetary tech one day - and boom - all their clothes come off. But you see, as backers have been giving them money this whole time, they had no reason to plan properly, let alone show meaningful progress. I mean, 6 years + $155M later, as I mentioned here (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5543), look at this shit. LOOK AT IT!!

- 3.0 (Moons) is planned for Aug 2017
- 2.6 (Star Marine) // Dec 2016
- 2.0 (Persistent Universe + Multi-Crew) // Dec 2015
- 1.2 (ArcCorp Social Module) // Aug 2015
- 1.0 (Arena Commander) // Dec 2014
- 0.x (Hangar Module) // Aug 2013

They're so fucked, it beggars belief. No wonder they are now talking about 5 - 10 systems at "launch", when in fact they don't even have 1 (Stanton) ready.

Now, if 3.0 actually comes out, this is how much it has been scaled back....

(http://i.imgur.com/mBQspA4.jpg)

Compared to what was promised almost a year ago

(http://imgur.com/54axyWT.jpg)

NOTE: The LoD game engine (http://lodgame.com/13-12-02-state-of-play/) was built from various middleware (why re-invent the wheel), and is completely different from what we've used for our legacy games. It was built from scratch.

And in case you missed my post about the furor that the GameStar preview has caused, you can read it here (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5543).

This was Aug 2016

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEZ5KeYWsAII_AU.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 19, 2017, 10:46:29 AM
I predict that 3.0 is going to be an unmitigated disaster if they release it before year end. But they will, because they have no choice. They have a LOT riding on this one, and Spergs really think this is the 'one' that brings salvation & vindication to the flock.

CR will just bait and switch again. He'll rattle off some speech about how some core tech was still needed but they were a matter of days/weeks away from releasing a "proper" 3.0 but will release what they have. This days/weeks becomes months and all of sudden 4.0 is the new jesus patch.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 19, 2017, 12:01:29 PM
I predict that 3.0 is going to be an unmitigated disaster if they release it before year end. But they will, because they have no choice. They have a LOT riding on this one, and Spergs really think this is the 'one' that brings salvation & vindication to the flock.

CR will just bait and switch again. He'll rattle off some speech about how some core tech was still needed but they were a matter of days/weeks away from releasing a "proper" 3.0 but will release what they have. This days/weeks becomes months and all of sudden 4.0 is the new jesus patch.

Well most of the hardcore already moved the Jesus Patch to 3.1; or didn't you get the memo?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 20, 2017, 02:43:20 AM
So am I to take it Derek, that adding various middleware modules onto an already existing engine is an easier and more stable solution to modifying an existing engine with the people who made it in the first place?

This seems counter intuitive to me. Surely the more modules you add on, the more likely it is to cause conflicts. Obviously I know little on the subject but it seems you're outright accusing the devs at CIG of lying in every video they put out. It seems unlikely they would all be happy to bare faced lie on camera about their progress and achievements.

Isn't it possible that they could, after many years of work, have modified enough of the engine to do what they claim they've done? A guy called Occam would think so. Doing what they say they're doing is the simplest explanation, rather than the whole company making stuff up on camera to the tune of these stories of inevitable failure.

Something doesn't add up. I suppose 3.0 will aid us all in our mathematics.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 20, 2017, 05:04:45 AM
So am I to take it Derek, that adding various middleware modules onto an already existing engine is an easier and more stable solution to modifying an existing engine with the people who made it in the first place?

Yes. That's why things like middleware, plugins (Unity, UE etc) and such exist. They are designed specifically for the target engine and are always a time saved. And most of the implementation is always straightforward. e.g. Star Citizen uses Scaleform (we use Iggy in LoD) for their UI. No way they would have spent time building a UI into StarEngine, as that takes up a lot of time. CIG also use various other middleware for things like AI, physics, networking etc.

Back when I started out, even as the tools I showed those images of are old and look awful, I had to write everything from scratch. We didn't have middleware or plugins to do this crap. That's one of the main reasons (besides inexperience) that my first game, Battlecruiser 3000AD, took so long. Then again, until LoD, my game engines were all written from scratch, and specifically customized for the games I was making.

This bit about CIG hiring some of the CryTek engineers in GER is always interesting to me. Those are not the guys who "built" the engine. They have experience with it, more than anyone else at CIG. Why? Because CryEngine isn't popular like Unity, UE4 etc, so very few people have experience using it. And since they opened that studio, and when backers were claiming they were the magicians who were going to make it happen - three years later, they haven't. As I wrote back in 2015, they were better off starting with a custom engine that had a different framework to support the increased scope of the game. If you are building a house with a sand foundation, building a mansion, instead of an apartment, on top of it, isn't to work out so well in the future. And replacing the sand foundation with concrete is a lot of work, so you could pour cement over the sand and hope for the best. That's their StarEngine atm. The sand foundation - being CryEngine - is still there.

Quote
This seems counter intuitive to me. Surely the more modules you add on, the more likely it is to cause conflicts. Obviously I know little on the subject but it seems you're outright accusing the devs at CIG of lying in every video they put out. It seems unlikely they would all be happy to bare faced lie on camera about their progress and achievements.

A lot of the time using third-party middleware is a time saver; and also it helps if you don't have someone on staff who knows enough about the engine to implement those pieces into it. Any conflicts, if any, are usually resolved during the integration process.

I don't know what "progress" you are talking about, or how it pertains to this subject, but I don't recall accusing them of lying about anything. There is a difference between lying, and being inexperienced and/or incompetent.

Quote
Isn't it possible that they could, after many years of work, have modified enough of the engine to do what they claim they've done?

No.

Quote
A guy called Occam would think so. Doing what they say they're doing is the simplest explanation, rather than the whole company making stuff up on camera to the tune of these stories of inevitable failure.

Actually no, that's not how Occam would apply in this situation because the simplest explanation isn't that they have actually done it. It's that they can't do it.

Quote
Something doesn't add up. I suppose 3.0 will aid us all in our mathematics.

It won't. And 3.0 is no indication of anything. It's just another module (ground access) tacked on. I remember back when some people were saying the same thing about 2.0.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 20, 2017, 05:39:26 AM
CIG claim to have a single map, millions of km in size, populated with object entities, such as planets and moons etc, that is all accessible seamslessley, without loading screens, streaming data to the clients as you approach them. They've talked about this and shown it in numerous ATVs and other places. They've said they get real time day and night cycles because of this way they've built the game. They've said they can have planet rotation and orbits.

You seem to be suggesting they can't do what they have repeatedly said they can do. 0% probability, as you say up there, means anyone who has said they've got the ability to do it is telling a lie. Each and every time. I find it unlikely that everytime a dev on ATV has said they can do any aspect you've mentioned as being impossible, they've been telling lies. After all, they're the ones working with the modified engine, not you. How sure can you be about them having zero percent probability of achieving something they say they can, and have, achieved, when you don't have access to their cryengine base code?

I do not like absolutes. I'm a scientist and nothing has zero percent probability...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 20, 2017, 06:36:37 AM
CIG claim to have a single map, millions of km in size, populated with object entities, such as planets and moons etc, that is all accessible seamslessley, without loading screens, streaming data to the clients as you approach them. They've talked about this and shown it in numerous ATVs and other places. They've said they get real time day and night cycles because of this way they've built the game. They've said they can have planet rotation and orbits.

You seem to be suggesting they can't do what they have repeatedly said they can do. 0% probability, as you say up there, means anyone who has said they've got the ability to do it is telling a lie. Each and every time. I find it unlikely that everytime a dev on ATV has said they can do any aspect you've mentioned as being impossible, they've been telling lies. After all, they're the ones working with the modified engine, not you. How sure can you be about them having zero percent probability of achieving something they say they can, and have, achieved, when you don't have access to their cryengine base code?

Yeah because in the history of the gaming industry, devs have never lied or flat out made shit up. It's one thing to have stuff in R&D and claim to have it, than to actually implement it. If you go back to 2013, since the first version of this train-wreck, they've talked up a bunch of tech and features that either are long forgotten, or yet to be implemented. Even to this day, they're still doing it. There are no day/night cycles. No orbiting moons and planets. In fact, no planets - period.

I remember in Oct 2016 when everyone thought that the presentation being passed off as 3.0 - complete with a glitchy worm - was actual client code that was coming in Dec 2016. Then CIG came clean that it was all mostly R&D. Then they made a "Road To CitizenCon" video.

My stance hasn't changed, and I don't care what anyone says, the game they can't build the game they promised. They can make as many claims as they want, it won't change my stance.

Quote
I do not like absolutes. I'm a scientist and nothing has zero percent probability...

Common sense doesn't require scientific acumen, proof, or basis.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: mixalot on July 20, 2017, 10:45:02 AM
At this point in time, a lot of Backers don't actually want a game, they are paying for an "experience" and CIG know it.

Star Citizen and SQ42 are just ideas and paying for JPEGS lets you pretend you are part of a new frontier in PC gaming and can talk about being in the club.

This is the so true and so on point. It's the same reason why people come out in masses to play the lottery when it reaches >500 million. People who would never play the lotto turn out and buy a $20-$100 series of tickets because they think "hey, why not?" They know they have basically no statistical chance to win the money, but they fantasize about the 'what if'. Essentially, when they buy their lotto ticket(s), they're buying a brief 1-day euphoria where they can fantasize about what they would do with all their money if they won and look forward to the numbers being played. And that's it, no more and no less.

Roberts has done the same thing; he sold every sci-fi gamer fan his version of the space lottery with varying levels of purchasable tickets. But instead of showing the contestants how much money they can win, he shows them ATVs and YouTube videos of an equivalent promised land. A thing they can fantasize about playing if they only contribute money.

That's what keeps the project going, is the fantasies and the imagination of sci-fi fans. Roberts is a POS because he knows this and preys upon it to suck these people dry. The guy has no original creativity and everything he's shown in SC is a ripoff of some other form of existing sci-fi fandom. He's not innovative and he doesn't have a gaming "vision." He makes his money due to nostalgia and the promises he's made that he can't keep.

(Edited for spelling)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 20, 2017, 01:02:25 PM
Just when you thought the Star Citizen saga couldn't any more ridonkulous, this is the latest JPEG that's going on sale.

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16014-Behold-The-Cyclone

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFNCFlEWsAA5qXo.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 20, 2017, 01:30:24 PM
Just when you thought the Star Citizen saga couldn't any more ridonkulous, this is the latest JPEG that's going on sale.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFNCFlEWsAA5qXo.jpg)
is this a buggy with ground to air combat missles? ... WTF
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 20, 2017, 01:32:25 PM
A presale. So that's in Alpha too  :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on July 20, 2017, 01:36:03 PM
is this even a space game anymore...?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 20, 2017, 01:44:25 PM
1 Buggy Model (5 Variants) for $230,- ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 20, 2017, 01:51:16 PM
This really freaks me out ... they barely got a flight model to work lets just ignore the 60 different ships they have to balance now count ground to air combat in this ...

This is something that should be in an expansion 2 years after release .... I guess we can now count the days until they put planetary buildings for sale ...

They are really gonna sell every fucking asset in the store ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 20, 2017, 02:14:22 PM
Well, they have to keep everybody longing for something new. Another ship, who cares. Whoo, a buggy, that's nice.

It doesn't matter anymore. They can't pull a rabbit out of the hat again in August and the certainly can't do/top that in October. It'll be all over by December. Even all the whales can't compensate the steady loss of funding.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 20, 2017, 02:32:08 PM
So of course now that they are rushing to implement moons in the upcoming 3.0 build, it makes sense that they would want to give players vehicles to drive around. There’s the Nox racer, a sort of hover bike, but today they unveiled the Cyclone, 4-wheel vehicle. Note that this is a “concept” sale. Meaning that it exists only in pictures. No model. No implementation in the game. And no guarantees that the project would still exist by the time they get around to implementing this vehicle. There are many concept ships they previously sold, and which are still not in the game in any way, shape, or forum.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 20, 2017, 02:45:04 PM
Well, Goons just busted CIG again plagiarizing art. This Cyclone image is apparently using an image from Milford Sound, New Zealand

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFNZ7IDXUAA5s67.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 20, 2017, 03:27:00 PM
CIG claim to have a single map, millions of km in size, populated with object entities, such as planets and moons etc, that is all accessible seamslessley, without loading screens, streaming data to the clients as you approach them. They've talked about this and shown it in numerous ATVs and other places. They've said they get real time day and night cycles because of this way they've built the game. They've said they can have planet rotation and orbits.

You seem to be suggesting they can't do what they have repeatedly said they can do. 0% probability, as you say up there, means anyone who has said they've got the ability to do it is telling a lie. Each and every time. I find it unlikely that everytime a dev on ATV has said they can do any aspect you've mentioned as being impossible, they've been telling lies. After all, they're the ones working with the modified engine, not you. How sure can you be about them having zero percent probability of achieving something they say they can, and have, achieved, when you don't have access to their cryengine base code?

Yeah because in the history of the gaming industry, devs have never lied or flat out made shit up. It's one thing to have stuff in R&D and claim to have it, than to actually implement it. If you go back to 2013, since the first version of this train-wreck, they've talked up a bunch of tech and features that either are long forgotten, or yet to be implemented. Even to this day, they're still doing it. There are no day/night cycles. No orbiting moons and planets. In fact, no planets - period.

I remember in Oct 2016 when everyone thought that the presentation being passed off as 3.0 - complete with a glitchy worm - was actual client code that was coming in Dec 2016. Then CIG came clean that it was all mostly R&D. Then they made a "Road To CitizenCon" video.

My stance hasn't changed, and I don't care what anyone says, the game they can't build the game they promised. They can make as many claims as they want, it won't change my stance.

Quote
I do not like absolutes. I'm a scientist and nothing has zero percent probability...

Common sense doesn't require scientific acumen, proof, or basis.

Oh an I would add that there have been key senior staff leaving CIG over the last few years who you would expect to have stayed on if CIG were doing what they claim to be doing , because working on the BDSSE is great for the CV/Resume.

Then you have younger developers sucking up to the boss, saying stupid things on camera,  because they don't know any better, they are going with the flow, being loyal, being bullish lots of reasons.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 20, 2017, 03:31:28 PM
This really freaks me out ... they barely got a flight model to work lets just ignore the 60 different ships they have to balance now count ground to air combat in this ...

This is something that should be in an expansion 2 years after release .... I guess we can now count the days until they put planetary buildings for sale ...

They are really gonna sell every fucking asset in the store ...

Remember we can all have tons of NPCs driving these around blowing people out of the sky whilst we explore elsewhere....it is going to be so much fun ...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 20, 2017, 03:51:52 PM
Well, they have to keep everybody longing for something new. Another ship, who cares. Whoo, a buggy, that's nice.

It doesn't matter anymore. They can't pull a rabbit out of the hat again in August and the certainly can't do/top that in October. It'll be all over by December. Even all the whales can't compensate the steady loss of funding.

they might only pull that rabbit out of the hat in October and publisise it in August.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 20, 2017, 04:23:05 PM
Hmmm, steady loss of funding or steady loss in funding? Now I'm wondering what is correct.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 21, 2017, 02:35:10 AM
They need sales, this is nothing new and neither are ground vehicles. Ursa, hangar buggy, dragonfly etc. When they release 3.0, whenever that may be, backers will have a few things to move around these uniquely huge cryengine assets with. Of course it's going to excite some. The funding tracker tells us to the tune of a quarter million dollars in a day. That's a decent level of interest still.

As long as they can get money for concepts then there is hope the technology will catch up with the plans. More time to do the 'impossible'. I mean, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it can't be done. If the funding doesn't dry up and they keep plugging away at it they're bound to get something worthwhile in the end.

Moving from a moon to a planet when you've gone from maximum map size of 10km X 10km to millions X millions doesn't sound like a tough ask. Once they have moons I doubt planets will be far behind.

The gamescom presentation will be vital to the funding. Create more buzz and the company keeps on keeping on. Get moons out to backers and there will be much rejoicing and wallet opening.

This project isn't finished yet, no where near.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 21, 2017, 02:54:49 AM
This project isn't finished yet, no where near.
Even better, this project will never be finished  :smuggo:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 21, 2017, 03:05:31 AM
How sure can you be about them having zero percent probability of achieving something they say they can, and have, achieved, when you don't have access to their cryengine base code?

That's an easy one to answer; you can just judge by their current progress. Obviously if they had an unlimited pot of money and unlimited time they could probably make any game they wanted - in that sense it's not an impossibility. When you look that so far they have a tiny % of the game they want to make and already have burned their way through many millions (depending on how you estimate their spending to date) you can begin to see that there's no way they finish the game in the way they have described. The only thing holding this whole house of cards from crumbling down is a thin veneer of glue known as the jesus patch - the promise that they are just 1 patch away from fixing all the huge problems with the game and allowing a very quick, streamlined addition of content all the way to full alpha and beyond.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 21, 2017, 05:17:49 AM
How sure can you be about them having zero percent probability of achieving something they say they can, and have, achieved, when you don't have access to their cryengine base code?

That's an easy one to answer; you can just judge by their current progress. Obviously if they had an unlimited pot of money and unlimited time they could probably make any game they wanted - in that sense it's not an impossibility. When you look that so far they have a tiny % of the game they want to make and already have burned their way through many millions (depending on how you estimate their spending to date) you can begin to see that there's no way they finish the game in the way they have described. The only thing holding this whole house of cards from crumbling down is a thin veneer of glue known as the jesus patch - the promise that they are just 1 patch away from fixing all the huge problems with the game and allowing a very quick, streamlined addition of content all the way to full alpha and beyond.

That's silly. Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it won't be done. They talk about their new systems coming online which, if true, might well allow a lot of the touted features to be possible.

Some said 2.0 was impossible yet it got done. A single cryengine map, millions of square kilometres in size. If you'd just looked at arena commander you may have made the same conclusion. 2.0 can't be done, AC is only 10 X 10km or so, no way they can make a map millions of kilometres a side...

Recent sales have proved they can raise money as and when they want so it's not dieing anytime soon. With time and more money who knows what will be become possible.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:19:17 AM
They need sales, this is nothing new and neither are ground vehicles. Ursa, hangar buggy, dragonfly etc. When they release 3.0, whenever that may be, backers will have a few things to move around these uniquely huge cryengine assets with. Of course it's going to excite some. The funding tracker tells us to the tune of a quarter million dollars in a day. That's a decent level of interest still.

As long as they can get money for concepts then there is hope the technology will catch up with the plans. More time to do the 'impossible'. I mean, just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it can't be done. If the funding doesn't dry up and they keep plugging away at it they're bound to get something worthwhile in the end.

Moving from a moon to a planet when you've gone from maximum map size of 10km X 10km to millions X millions doesn't sound like a tough ask. Once they have moons I doubt planets will be far behind.

The gamescom presentation will be vital to the funding. Create more buzz and the company keeps on keeping on. Get moons out to backers and there will be much rejoicing and wallet opening.

This project isn't finished yet, no where near.

If only that were true. They are not making enough monthly income to sustain all the studios. This is not hyperbole, it's an actual fact now, going from what we have seen of the financials. As long as they are making less than $3M per month, they just can't continue forever without scaling down the team. And never in the history of the industry, has throwing money at a bad project, resulted in a good project. And the issue with these two projects is more about the promises made, than about what kind of games will come out at the end.

The surface area of the planet/moon is irrelevant. It's all about performance, practicality, and what to do and put on the surface. ED has a far more superior engine and game, yet they don't have planets. They have moons and planetoids with specific POIs. In SC, the reason they are doing moons and planetoids is specifically because of the scale and performance issues. Big for the sake of big, doesn't make it a game if it's pointless. In these games, the reason you would want a large surface area, is about aircraft. An aircraft flying at 350 m/s in space, isn't going to travel that fast on the planet without running out of space.

As to the moon vs planet vs planetoid issue, this is an excerpt from what I wrote yesterday (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5580):

"I remember when planets were coming. Then we found out they were moons (Yela and Cellin) – of course because they are smaller, and easier to handle and build, than full blown planets.

Then, after promising the Stanton system back in 2016, they are now saying that they’re going to be moving (LOL!!) Delamar from Nyx to Stanton. You know why? Because they can’t do planets, or they would be building the Crusader planet, which is in Stanton already. Instead, since Delamar (within the Glaciem ring/belt in Nyx) is just a large asteroid the size of a small planet (hence planetoid), they are moving it to Stanton.

If they can move Delamar, they could very well have changed Crusader from a gas giant to a regular planet, built that, and left Delamar where it is. But that would mean having to build an actual planet which would require a larger surface area, more terrain assets, POIs etc. The problem with creating surface area in these games is that when you have air/space craft which can travel up to 350 m/s in space, due to the expanse, on a planet they will quickly run out of space to fly.

And Delamar, which has the Levksi landing zone, may not even be in 3.0 when it first launches.

===

It's worse than that.

Nyx is an entirely different star system which they haven't built. So leaving Delamar where it is, would have meant building the Nyx star system, when in fact they only have Stanton (15% built, if you counted all the elements in the Star map, compared to what's in the current game client), and having to deal with player transitions from one system to another. So they just said, fuck it, we'll just move it.
"

It doesn't matter how much money they have, or how long they keep at this, it's never going to amount to the game they pitched. Back in July 2015 when they had $85M, I said they needed at least $150M, the right tech, and experienced people to build Star Citizen. They crossed that financial milestone back in May 2017 - and they are still not even 15% of the way there (https://starcitizentracker.github.io/). Now, assuming the GameStar article is accurate, they are talking about 5 - 10 systems at "launch". So do the math.

That's an easy one to answer; you can just judge by their current progress. Obviously if they had an unlimited pot of money and unlimited time they could probably make any game they wanted - in that sense it's not an impossibility. When you look that so far they have a tiny % of the game they want to make and already have burned their way through many millions (depending on how you estimate their spending to date) you can begin to see that there's no way they finish the game in the way they have described. The only thing holding this whole house of cards from crumbling down is a thin veneer of glue known as the jesus patch - the promise that they are just 1 patch away from fixing all the huge problems with the game and allowing a very quick, streamlined addition of content all the way to full alpha and beyond.

It's not even the Jesus Patch that's holding it together. It's the real backers, and those engaged in money laundering, who are propping it up financially. Without some money coming in, investment and loans aside, the whole thing falls apart. And that's the thing with Ponzi schemes, no matter how long you run them for, it's only going to take one event to topple it.

That's silly. Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it won't be done. They talk about their new systems coming online which, if true, might well allow a lot of the touted features to be possible.

Some said 2.0 was impossible yet it got done. A single cryengine map, millions of square kilometres in size. If you'd just looked at arena commander you may have made the same conclusion. 2.0 can't be done, AC is only 10 X 10km or so, no way they can make a map millions of kilometres a side...

Recent sales have proved they can raise money as and when they want so it's not dieing anytime soon. With time and more money who knows what will be become possible.

That's a silly argument to make. Nobody is saying that it can't be done because it hasn't been done before. The narrative, at least from my perspective, is that it can't be done because the game pitched faces insurmountable obstacles in terms of tech, talent, and money. So far, this continues to be fact, as evidenced by the amount of money they've thrown at it, how long it's taken, and the fact that even 3 years overdue, still isn't even 15% of the way there.

Nobody ever said 2.0 was impossible. Please go ahead and cite some sources where you saw this. Like Arena Commander, Star Marine etc there is nothing in 2.0 that would have been impossible because it doesn't contain anything that hasn't been done before, nor revolutionary. And the map size in 2.0 has nothing to do with it not being possible to do. It's just a map extent increase which they hacked in support for; and I've written extensively about this already.

And raising money has no correlation to success if they have insurmountable challenges to face. And those challenges stem from the game they pitched. There are many million and billion Dollar companies that fail - every day - wiping away years of work and investor money. I'm sure they too thought they would make it if they just kept getting money.

Speaking of performance issues, this is from yesterday's AtV. Ignoring that it's running in the editor, this is with NO game clients and NO gameplay features in the scene. Only rendering. And THAT'S the problem they are facing, and which I have been writing about since I got wind of it.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFN34Z_XYAAVAcD.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 21, 2017, 07:55:22 AM
It would be nice if you could at least try to be objective Derek. Nobody has made a cryengine map bigger than a few kilometres square before. CIG converted to 64 bit positional coordinates and produced a cryengine map millions of km across that you can travel seamlessly. To suggest that's been done before is either willful ignorance or a straight up lie.

On the finances you've answered your own questions. If they were running out of money they would be cutting staff left and right wouldn't they? Stories of non payment of wages leaking out etc. Instead they're growing the studios. I've heard that they're running out of money for a couple of years now...and here we are, still a going concern, still developing.

They're moving landing zones in the alpha because intra system travel isn't coming for quite some time yet but the landing zones have been worked on for a while. They'll be moved back to their rightful positions once they have different systems to travel to.

The FPS counter visible in some development videos means nothing. At all. I'm sure you know that. No context. No value.

It impossible that everything they do is incompetant, fabrication or plagiarised, yet some around the web will try to tell me it is so. I just don't buy it. Troubled they may be but a product is coming. What type of product is the interesting bit.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 21, 2017, 08:55:09 AM
The problems and rumors that come with financial troubles normally appear when there are no further rescue means available. The moment CIG has to make clear that they're in financial trouble is the moment that the project collapses. You can't burn thru almost 200 mil. and then expect someone to keep funding you so you can continue because you ran out of money.

There is so much wrong with this project that even a blind and deaf man can read and hear that this game is never going to be finished/released. I'd suggest you start repeating the words "Derek Smart was right" on a regular basis. I don't know how to define regular for you, but I'd do it enough to be able to say them without problems in a couple of months  :D
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on July 21, 2017, 09:17:59 AM
It would be nice if you could at least try to be objective Derek. Nobody has made a cryengine map bigger than a few kilometres square before. CIG converted to 64 bit positional coordinates and produced a cryengine map millions of km across that you can travel seamlessly. To suggest that's been done before is either willful ignorance or a straight up lie.

On the finances you've answered your own questions. If they were running out of money they would be cutting staff left and right wouldn't they? Stories of non payment of wages leaking out etc. Instead they're growing the studios. I've heard that they're running out of money for a couple of years now...and here we are, still a going concern, still developing.

They're moving landing zones in the alpha because intra system travel isn't coming for quite some time yet but the landing zones have been worked on for a while. They'll be moved back to their rightful positions once they have different systems to travel to.

The FPS counter visible in some development videos means nothing. At all. I'm sure you know that. No context. No value.

It impossible that everything they do is incompetant, fabrication or plagiarised, yet some around the web will try to tell me it is so. I just don't buy it. Troubled they may be but a product is coming. What type of product is the interesting bit.

A big problem here and the Refunds Reddit is those at odds against CIG are also at odds with themselves. I don't think anyone here TRULY wants SC to fail. Even DS often states that he would love to play SC as it was pitched because, after all, we are all old space sim fans so why wouldn't he want to play an impressive and fun game? However on the other end people get so emotionally attached that when they finally get fed up they also want to see CIG fail, for the exact reasons IDK but I hypothesize its due to some sense of justice over CR's mismanagement and frequent dishonesty (more likely blatant lying about what they can do, and the status of the project/company) to the public. Basically they feel like they've been taken for a ride and advantage of so to see CIG collapse would be poetic justice and for a few CR is little more than a conman at this point.

DS is the only person I can think of that has any right to a personal grievance with CR and CIG since they have personally and publicly attacked him and his projects, as well as cultivated the anti-DS cult which is beyond bazaar. The rest of us are very much at odds, sadly if CIG does tank and SC fails as a fun game with lots of repayable content everyone loses. The CIG staff who are innocent in the matter lose their job, we lose the game we dreamed for, we all lose.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 21, 2017, 10:09:43 AM
[...] The CIG staff who are innocent in the matter lose their job, we lose the game we dreamed for, we all lose.
Except the Roberts Clan they've won, millions of backers money for a wealthy future.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Scruffpuff on July 21, 2017, 11:36:55 AM
The laser-focus on whether or not something is "possible" smacks of desperation.

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/so-youre-saying-theres-a-chance-memes-com-16169791.png)

Lots of things are possible - there are people out there breaking the boundaries of what we think possible every day.  Chris Roberts is the opposite of those people.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:03:51 PM
It would be nice if you could at least try to be objective Derek. Nobody has made a cryengine map bigger than a few kilometres square before. CIG converted to 64 bit positional coordinates and produced a cryengine map millions of km across that you can travel seamlessly. To suggest that's been done before is either willful ignorance or a straight up lie.

I have no idea what you are going on about. My "it hasn't been done before" was about the game features and scope. You are talking about some engine modification. The two are mutually exclusive. Heck, I wrote an entire paragraph on exactly what I was talking about. Why would I even say that expanding the size of a CryEngine map hasn't been done before, when in fact an MMO game did just that; though not to the extent that Star Citizen did.

And you're talking about CryEngine - which nobody cares about. My BC/UC games, Dual Universe, Infinity Battlespace, Elite Dangerous etc, all have massive worlds. Star Citizen is just playing catch-up, regardless of what engine they used to do it.

Quote
On the finances you've answered your own questions. If they were running out of money they would be cutting staff left and right wouldn't they? Stories of non payment of wages leaking out etc. Instead they're growing the studios. I've heard that they're running out of money for a couple of years now...and here we are, still a going concern, still developing.

That's false.

1) people ARE leaving.

2) the studio sizes HAVE been decreasing this year

3) there won't be storied of non-payment if they are still making payroll

The ONLY reason the project is still afloat is because you guys keep propping it up. Nothing wrong with that, it's your money. But don't pretend as if this project would still be a going concern if they were still relying on $45 game sales, instead of concept ships and other shenanigans to raise money. It would be over by now. That's why they keep doing those sales.

In the history of the industry, you only ever start hearing horror stories usually after the fact.

Quote
They're moving landing zones in the alpha because intra system travel isn't coming for quite some time yet but the landing zones have been worked on for a while. They'll be moved back to their rightful positions once they have different systems to travel to.

We know this. I wrote about it. And the reason for that is because they would rather be milking Stanton which has pre-existing content, than building another system (e.g. Nyx) to support intra-system travel. As I mentioned above, if they could do entire planets, they would have temporarily made Crusader a regular planet, instead of having to move Delamar, a planetoid, from Nyx to Stanton. THAT tells me that 1) they are having technical issues with intra-system travel due to the scope and code needed to do it 2) building Nyx would take resources away from Stanton - which they are currently using as a proof-of-concept to raise money.

Quote
The FPS counter visible in some development videos means nothing. At all. I'm sure you know that. No context. No value.

That's false.

The FPS counter means something because, in a level, it allows the artists to determine how well and optimized the level is. They have to account for gameplay and client additions later. That's how it works. And that's why the FPS counter is important.

It is a benchmark tool which also prevents the artist/modeler from going overboard with assets in the scene.

We ran into the same issues with Line Of Defense whereby, using the FPS counter, the team that builds our scenes, had to cut back on a lot of things, include terrain mesh, polygon reduction in some assets (e.g. buildings). And even though the game is content complete, the performance is still undergoing review from time to time in order to streamline the scenes.

In fact, our Gulge (http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/gulge_panorama.jpg) scene is the most complex and doesn't run as smooth as Heatwave (http://lodgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/heatwave_panorama.jpg) or the other two (Frostbite, Nightbridge) scenes, which are also complex and huge.

Quote
It impossible that everything they do is incompetant, fabrication or plagiarised, yet some around the web will try to tell me it is so. I just don't buy it. Troubled they may be but a product is coming. What type of product is the interesting bit.

Nobody is implying any of that, and you shouldn't be paying attention to that nonsense. Not everything about the project is a rubbish. It has a LOT of good parts, mostly in terms of visual fidelity, and some gameplay aspects. Technology wise, they're not breaking any new ground. At the end of the day, the gameplay - not the tech - is what will make or break the game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:07:15 PM
The problems and rumors that come with financial troubles normally appear when there are no further rescue means available. The moment CIG has to make clear that they're in financial trouble is the moment that the project collapses. You can't burn thru almost 200 mil. and then expect someone to keep funding you so you can continue because you ran out of money.

There is so much wrong with this project that even a blind and deaf man can read and hear that this game is never going to be finished/released. I'd suggest you start repeating the words "Derek Smart was right" on a regular basis. I don't know how to define regular for you, but I'd do it enough to be able to say them without problems in a couple of months  :D

Yes indeed. And that's how Ponzi schemes fail. All it takes is one. In the case of CIG, they are trying to give the illusion of healthy finances. We know the funding tracker to be bullshit (aside from the fact that it doesn't track subscriptions or refunds). And the UK loan is also bullshit. We don't know how financially stretched they are here in the US, as those numbers are not public - yet.

If a group of backers weren't still giving them money, this thing would have been all over by now. They know this. Which is why, the last two years, they've been using lies, and bullshot images and videos to give the illusion of progress.

I don't care what anyone says or believes, it's going to collapse.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:14:11 PM
A big problem here and the Refunds Reddit is those at odds against CIG are also at odds with themselves. I don't think anyone here TRULY wants SC to fail. Even DS often states that he would love to play SC as it was pitched because, after all, we are all old space sim fans so why wouldn't he want to play an impressive and fun game?

Exactly. A lot of people keep forgetting that I was one of the ORIGINAL backers. Until I dared to question the project. And like what they do to other dissenting backers, they kicked me out. But not only that, they lied about their reasons to the media. Then took actions that ended up starting a massive war with their toxic backers.

And because I am 100% certain that I am right (as has been proven time and time again) about the insurmountable odds of developing the game, my end goal is more about vindication, than it is about my desire to see the project fail.

Even if they do somehow stick around for the next 2-3 years to "launch" the game with 5 - 10 systems, and SQ42, I would still play it. That won't change my quest for vindication, which, when you think about it, they already proved by scaling down the game since July 2015 when I said they couldn't build it as pitched.

Quote
DS is the only person I can think of that has any right to a personal grievance with CR and CIG since they have personally and publicly attacked him and his projects, as well as cultivated the anti-DS cult which is beyond bazaar. The rest of us are very much at odds, sadly if CIG does tank and SC fails as a fun game with lots of repayable content everyone loses. The CIG staff who are innocent in the matter lose their job, we lose the game we dreamed for, we all lose.

Exactly. The trolling side of me wants it to collapse with a total loss of backer money, so that I can grief and laugh at those who have been attacking me for going on two years straight. The sensible backers, who I have more concern for, are the ones who have either refunded, or have very little invested in the game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:15:42 PM
The laser-focus on whether or not something is "possible" smacks of desperation.

(https://pics.onsizzle.com/so-youre-saying-theres-a-chance-memes-com-16169791.png)

Lots of things are possible - there are people out there breaking the boundaries of what we think possible every day.  Chris Roberts is the opposite of those people.

LOL!! Indeed. That's the part that I simply don't understand. Chris have proven - publicly - that the project as pitched CANNOT be made. Yet, there are those who are somehow trumpeting this nonsense that because everything is possible, so to is this project. It's amazing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 21, 2017, 05:44:35 PM
Here we go again. It's like 2015 all over again

"First man on the moon: hands-on with Star Citizen Alpha 3.0" (http://www.pcgamer.com/first-man-on-the-moon-hands-on-with-star-citizen-alpha-30/)

At least they confirmed "seamless transition from space to planet". Now we wait to see if that's what they deliver or not.

The way he describes this part isn't very clear.

Quote
As promised, it was a seamless transition: taking off from the space station, flying into space, making a quantum jump to the Daymar, entering the atmosphere, and landing.

I would like to know more about that part specifically.

1) Is it like Elite Dangerous where you can fly directly into the planet without using frameshift? Same as in Battlespace Infinity.

2) Is it like Universal Combat where you fly directly into the planet, then when you breach the planet's gravitational pull you enter the atmosphere?

3) Is it like Line Of Defense where you fly to the planet in space, select a base to drop into via a menu, then you are transitioned from space to the atmosphere?

What if "making a quantum jump to Daymar" means jumping into the planet's atmosphere from space? Hence a concealed load screen transition from space to planet?

I am more interested in his seamless statement. Also, as he was no doubt running a local LAN build, his performance and experience would definitely be better than a live online session.

https://twitter.com/screencuisine/status/888635298833285120

https://twitter.com/screencuisine/status/888580814635622400

UPDATE: Print copy

In case you were wondering. There isn't a SINGLE image from the ACTUAL GAME in this article.

(https://i.imgur.com/b8ok51kr.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/wUrWSIV.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/KvVJymp.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/b8ok51k.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 22, 2017, 03:53:04 AM
Well there's a question answered in his reply tweets. Nice one Derek. Seamless transitions from space to moon, confirmed. That's pretty special in cryengine looking as good as it does.

Really looking forward to 3.0 now. Should be amazing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 22, 2017, 05:24:35 AM
Well there's a question answered in his reply tweets. Nice one Derek. Seamless transitions from space to moon, confirmed.

Yeah, his write-up wasn't very clear. That's why I asked him a follow-up question.

https://twitter.com/screencuisine/status/888635298833285120

He says he flew to both Daymar and an asteroid (I assume Delamar which has Levski landing zone).

I for one think it's a huge mistake for them to have it in the same scene because it's going to continue being a huge performance (streaming isn't going to solve that) hog, forcing them to change it at some point. Which leads me to believe that it was done this way probably for the review and to keep up the hype leading to GamesCon.

And until we can play it, there is still no way to tell how (which doesn't matter, as long as it works) they are handling the transition from space to the moon. It could be a "streamed" loading like ED when you are within proximity of the moon.

And if performance wasn't an issue, they'd have made Crusader a standard planet (instead of gas giant), instead of moving Delamar (a planetoid) from Nyx to Stanton in order to have barren moons which have less performance requirements than a full blown planet with more topological features.

Quote
That's pretty special in cryengine looking as good as it does.

I don't know why it's "special" though. It's just another object in a CryEngine scene (as seen from the AtV videos). The debate has always been about whether or not they would keep it in the scene as-is (like the stations), or load it separately (like AC, Star Marine, ArcCorp) as its own level for performance reasons. And LumberYard has asset streaming built-in (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/developerguide/system-streaming.html).

That they are still in pre-alpha, and it took them 5 years to get planetary scenes in a space game, even after touting it since 2015, is what's amazing. Not to mention the fact that they are still playing catch-up with that sort of thing anyway, as it's not revolutionary anymore.

Anyone who thinks 3.0 is going to be anything other than a milestone like 2.0 (2015) or 2.6 (Star Marine) is an idiot. It will get released in some fashion, backers will see that it's just another check mark in the list of promises, then forget about it after a week due to the repetitive "missions" in it. That's if performance issues allow even most of them to actually "play" it.

My stance on this planetary transition issue has been pretty consistent:

17-07-19 // performance issues in 3.0, seamless transition discussion (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/#post-5521)

17-07-07 // procedural moons analysis (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-5501)

17-06-22 // 3.0 tech nightmare & performance hog (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg1728#msg1728)

17-05-15 // 3.0 seamless transition thoughts (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1573#msg1573)

17-04-23 // discussion of moons in 3.0 (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1432#msg1432)

17-02-13 // discussion with procedural planets videos (from Nyx to sandworm) (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1053#msg1053)

16-10-29 // discussion of procedural planet generation (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-musings/#post-4725)

We also now know that they aren't doing "procedural planets" (as in Battlecruiser/Universal Combat games, No Man's Sky etc), despite touting this since 2014. Instead, they are using procedural techniques to populate the "surface" of planets and moons.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 22, 2017, 06:03:39 AM
As you say, it really doesn't matter exactly how they do it as long as there's no loading screens or break from playing then they've managed to complete an important part of the puzzle.

The performance issue is interesting. Client streaming won't improve the server performance of course but aren't they using procedural tech for it? They can't keep numerous moons and their respective landing zones in memory, poor performance or otheriwse, can they? Far too big aren't they? So streaming a single procedurally generated, huge asset is possible as other games do it.

Can't wait to find out anyway. Not long now...maybe.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 22, 2017, 06:17:11 AM
As you say, it really doesn't matter exactly how they do it as long as there's no loading screens or break from playing then they've managed to complete an important part of the puzzle.

The performance issue is interesting. Client streaming won't improve the server performance of course but aren't they using procedural tech for it? They can't keep numerous moons and their respective landing zones in memory, poor performance or otheriwse, can they? Far too big aren't they? So streaming a single procedurally generated, huge asset is possible as other games do it.

LumberYard/CryEngine has asset streaming built-in (http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lumberyard/latest/developerguide/system-streaming.html). It's not rocket science. The issue boils down to the amount of data needing to be streamed, the performance issues (e.g. hiccups, load stuttering etc) associated with that. This is probably why they opted to do barren moons instead of planets, as the latter would be more of a performance and resource hog. Hence the reason that, instead of temporarily making Crusader a regular planet (instead of a gas giant), they opted to move Delamar, a planetoid (asteroid) from Nyx, to Stanton, thus giving them two moons and a planetoid.

In all games, regardless of the tech and the visuals, if you can't address the performance issues, it doesn't matter how good the game is, it will fail. And early this morning a source and I exchange emails (started yesterday) in which he said that much hasn't changed in terms of performance since PC Gamer played 3.0 the middle of last month. So they are still in fact having performance issues in 3.0. What's left to be seen is if they release it to Evocati as is, or take drastic (e.g. loading the planets separately) to fix that.

Some people keep forgetting that this is NOT a single-player game. So it has a lot of hurdles to climb in order to make it work properly in a multiplayer environment.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 09:04:49 AM
The big question is if they will release anything before the next big show-off. Since they never can live up to the expectations of the hard core idiots, any release would be yet another disappointment and thus killing a lot of income. Better to feed false news, grab all the anticipation money and then await the shitstorm. Makes you wonder if they dare to release anything between August and October for that matter.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 22, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
The big question is if they will release anything before the next big show-off. Since they never can live up to the expectations of the hard core idiots, any release would be yet another disappointment and thus killing a lot of income. Better to feed false news, grab all the anticipation money and then await the shitstorm. Makes you wonder if they dare to release anything between August and October for that matter.

Well they have another month to go before they have to deal with that. From what I am hearing, they're not going to be able to resolve the performance issues before then. So it remains to be seen if they will just dump it so they say they released it, then continue working on it. There are serious bugs in 2.6.3 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha/prioritize?sort=most_vote) which have been there for years. So this update is just going to add more to that pile.

I don't care what anyone says, 3.0, while a major milestone like the others before it, isn't going to mean anything in the end, let alone rescue the game from its downward spiral. The entire project is irrecoverable because they've crossed the point where they could have saved it. That was back in 2015, following 2.0.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Meowz on July 22, 2017, 10:26:06 AM
The big question is if they will release anything before the next big show-off. Since they never can live up to the expectations of the hard core idiots, any release would be yet another disappointment and thus killing a lot of income. Better to feed false news, grab all the anticipation money and then await the shitstorm. Makes you wonder if they dare to release anything between August and October for that matter.

Well they have another month to go before they have to deal with that. From what I am hearing, they're not going to be able to resolve the performance issues before then. So it remains to be seen if they will just dump it so they say they released it, then continue working on it. There are serious bugs in 2.6.3 (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha/prioritize?sort=most_vote) which have been there for years. So this update is just going to add more to that pile.

I don't care what anyone says, 3.0, while a major milestone like the others before it, isn't going to mean anything in the end, let alone rescue the game from its downward spiral. The entire project is irrecoverable because they've crossed the point where they could have saved it. That was back in 2015, following 2.0.

Surely they realize this and will start doing whatever they can to salvage the project, even if it does mean reducing the majority of features promised at release which they seem to have started to do with the reduced solar systems. SQ42 as a single player game would generate at least a decent chunk of revenue if it is a fun game to play in its own. Is CR planning and preparing for a rough future, or just throwing the dice with the intent of either making some miracle breakthrough or willingly run the company into the ground?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 22, 2017, 11:02:06 AM
Surely they realize this and will start doing whatever they can to salvage the project, even if it does mean reducing the majority of features promised at release which they seem to have started to do with the reduced solar systems. SQ42 as a single player game would generate at least a decent chunk of revenue if it is a fun game to play in its own. Is CR planning and preparing for a rough future, or just throwing the dice with the intent of either making some miracle breakthrough or willingly run the company into the ground?

Of course they realize it. When also explains why, the past two schedules, even with two week delays across the board, still has the same 08/25/17 release date. There are sales going on, so they don't want to panic backer whales.

Yesterday's schedule (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report) (diff (https://www.diffchecker.com/au6DOJ98)) even had entries that remaining untouched. e.g. ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER, VOLUMETRIC FOG, APOCALYPSE ARMS SCOURGE RAIL GUN

Nicholas over at SA, finally got his analysis up:

July 21st Schedule Report

Completed: 4
Delayed: 10
Remaining: 17 (was 21)
Needs bug-fixing: 13 (was 13)
Total In-progress: 30
Progress since July 14th: 4 out of 34 tasks.
Furthest ETA: Aug 10th (was Aug 10th)

COMPLETED

Quote
Item 2.0 Multi Function Displays

Rover and Dragonfly in Ships

StarMap App

Behring P4-AR - Legacy weapon re-work

DELAYED

Quote
Mission Givers - ETA is 28th July (was 14th July)
Reason: The estimate for the mission givers has been pushed back due to some animations requiring rework and newly discovered code dependencies.

Delamar / Levski - ETA is 28th July (was 14th July)
Reason: There is some remaining shop kiosk implementation to be completed for 3.0.0 resulting in a slight delay.

Inventory System Support - ETA is 27th July (was 20th July)
Reason: None given

Entity Owner Manager - ETA is 28th July (was 20th July)
Reason: None Given

Cargo Manifest App - ETA is 27th July (was 20th July)
Reason: Delayed due to complications while hooking up the search bar and transfer popup, but the feature is now code complete and requires some final hookup to Flash.[/b]

Ship Selector App & Insurance Claim - ETA is 3rd August (was 19th July)
Reason: Code is complete and now requires final hookup, but this has been delayed due to the team supporting hint system for designers. Also, the completion date for this feature has moved out in order to support the item 2.0 Multi-Function Displays and Inventory.[/b]

Inventory System - ETA is 27th July (was 20th July)
Reason: Also delayed due to complications while hooking up the search bar and transfer popup, but the feature is now code complete and requires some final hookup to Flash.[/b]

Mission System - ETA is 24th July
Reason: None given

Render to Texture - ETA is 10th August
Reason: None Given

RSI Aurora - ETA is 4th August (was 21st July)
Reason: Implementing the “springy” landing gear on ships, and bug fixing on other ships have delayed the delivery of the Aurora.

OPEN

Quote
- MISSION GIVERS
- DELAMAR / LEVSKI (STRETCH GOAL)
- INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
- ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER
- ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION
- CARGO MANIFEST APP
- VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP
- SHIP SELECTOR APP & INSURANCE CLAIM
- INVENTORY SYSTEM
- COMMS SYSTEM UI
- MISSION SYSTEM
- RENDER TO TEXTURE
- VOLUMETRIC FOG (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- APOCALYPSE ARMS SCOURGE RAIL GUN (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- RSI AURORA
- GEMINI L86 PISTOL

MARKED COMPLETED BUT UNDERGOING BUG FIXING

Quote
- Item 2.0 Ship Conversion – Part 2
- Insurance
- Doors and Airlocks
- Cargo
- Kiosk Support
- Repair
- Hint System
- Personal Manager App
- Mission Manager App
- Physics Serialization
- Drake Dragonfly
- RSI Constellation Aquilla
- Misc Prospector

Ah yeah, I remember back when the schedule was first unveiled earlier this year. Good times.

(http://imgur.com/vczKETy.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 12:12:50 PM
So they hold on for a new release during Gamescon. If they make that, they'll likely tank the project with another crappy product. If they don't make that, they'll likely tank the project too just for screwing up one too many times. If for some magical happening they make it after that to Citizencon, they'll have to show something really big there. I'm guessing the next couple a months are critical. If funding dries up, they need to adjust with big lay-offs et cetera and that will create the panic that has everybody jumping overboard.

Now CR has given himself a big salary and he added some family and friends too. How much of that behaviour (money) can he be held accountable for if this collapses? Overhere, as a manager you can be held legally accountable for mismanagement. How's that in the US of A?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 12:16:09 PM
[...] Now CR has given himself a big salary and he added some family and friends too. How much of that behaviour (money) can he be held accountable for if this collapses? Overhere, as a manager you can be held legally accountable for mismanagement. How's that in the US of A?
Held accountable by whom? Private refunds? With the net of corporations it will be almost impossible to held anybody accountable.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 12:29:53 PM
By a legal party. Justice, Feds, something like that. If CIG collapses, a legal investigation of some sort will be started I think. The legal system provides in investigations without a prior charge first too. Of course, complaints filed against CIG by backers and/or investors would seem logical.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 01:58:35 PM
[...] If CIG collapses, a legal investigation of some sort will be started I think. [...]
Why?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 02:26:50 PM
If CIG goes bankrupt an investigation would follow, at least by those responsible for handling the bankruptcy. If CIG downsizes large and takes other measures to keep it afloat enough not to violate their own promises, backers/investors will seek compensation. One or two should be enough.

I can't imagine that when CIG collapses, CR and family can walk away with of couple of years of salaries of say 500K and live out the rest of their lives. Maybe in the USA a bankruptcy is a simple thing, but overhere everything will be checked to see if the bankrupty is legit. So no taking out all of the cash a day before, selling all the properties first etc. And I can't see this ending in something where legally they have done nothing wrong so they can walk away with it. They're not that clever.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 02:45:10 PM
They're not that clever.
You are underestimating people with money.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 02:53:05 PM
They are only liable with their personal money if they did illegal stuff - and this has to be proven.
CR can just say the backers demanded it we tried and failed - story over.

I am very sad that you are living in a country where anybody is liable to their companies with personal money ... I guess you won't have that much companies over there.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 03:23:53 PM
That's not what I mean. You can be personally responsible overhere, if you have a so called one-man business (or 2-man partnership). You are responsible for the business then even with your house, personal belongings etc. etc.

But what I meant is that if your company (the corporate kind) goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy has to be handled by a court appointed lawyer and they have to investigate if the bankruptcy wasn't a fraud. So moving 1 mil. from the company to your private account and then filing for bankruptcy won't work. That 1 mil. will go back into the company. The other thing is that as a manager, you will be tested to see if you have conducted yourself in a proper business way. In the case of CIG, having all that backers money but spending it on a abnormal salary for yourself, buying stuff that has nothing to do with the business (say, CR bought a yacht in Monaco) and that sort of thing will make you accountable for the bankruptcy. In short, spending all the money and then claiming "sorry, I'm apparently a bad businessman with no talent for the trade" doesn't fly here.

Would this apply to CIG, one could argue that the top-salaries where way above normal and the abnormal part should therefore be paid back to CIG. If CR doesn't have that money anymore, he can sell all his assets and if that still isn't enough, the remaining debt will remain open to be paid later. So living a luxury live now on the backers money and then filing for bankruptcy because the funds dried up, no way he could pull that off.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 04:01:51 PM
Like many other things in the surroundings of this game ... this is something that won't happen.
Please turn on your brain before writing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 22, 2017, 04:32:32 PM
Well argumented. Care to elaborate further?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 22, 2017, 05:27:20 PM
You can be personally responsible overhere, if you have a so called one-man business (or 2-man partnership). You are responsible for the business then even with your house, personal belongings etc. etc.
None of which applies to CIG's current type of incorporation, as you are surely aware.

The other thing is that as a manager, you will be tested to see if you have conducted yourself in a proper business way. In the case of CIG, having all that backers money but spending it on a abnormal salary for yourself

Would this apply to CIG, one could argue that the top-salaries where way above normal and the abnormal part should therefore be paid back to CIG.
I doubt that any notion that CR's salary, and even the bonuses, being "abnormal" would hold up without any challenge in court. Define "abnormal"… in relation to which "norm"? If you compare his salary (whatever the amount) with that of peers in the industry (e.g. entrepreneurs and owners of certain other software companies), I'm sure you would find lots of executives who pay themselves less, and some superstars of the business who earn significantly more – like, say, in the world of fund managers, musicians and lawyers. Prosecutors would choose the first peer group as reference, CR will no doubt argue that he belongs to the latter (and that his genius work merits no less than a salary comparable with Bill Gates or the Rolling Stones), and the outcome of the ensuing argument would be anyone's guess IMO.

buying stuff that has nothing to do with the business (say, CR bought a yacht in Monaco) and that sort of thing will make you accountable for the bankruptcy.
Unless his salary and bonus payments are indeed determined to be inappropriate (see above), whatever he does with his personal earnings is his own business and has nothing to do with company affairs.

In short, spending all the money and then claiming "sorry, I'm apparently a bad businessman with no talent for the trade" doesn't fly here.
I'm not so sure. In hindsight, we all know better. Therefore, the litmus test applied in many jurisdictions focuses on whether the business decision was plausible at the time it was made, not whether it makes sense from a future point of view. It will be interesting to see what the court thinks about stuff like bank loans, forex transactions, money movement between shell companies and the setting up of such etc., but I don't see CR's spending personal funds on vacations in Monaco or wherever being relevant in this context as long as he has not been found guilty of siphoning said funds out of the company by illegal means.

In short: in my opinion, it will probably take 8 years of court trials and $155m+ in legal fees to establish any actual bad intent or wrongful conduct, no matter how delusional or evil his current business practices seem to be for us.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 22, 2017, 05:30:48 PM
Star citizen became a machine to milk players out of money with smoke and mirrors.
CIG has 14 shell companies and is shifting money around the world.

If CIG has a liability to their customers, they have to refund their backers cause various reasons.
But if the money runs out the backers get nothing, especially not from CR private money.

If there is something illegal going on the state will fine the responsible persons but the backers will get nothing more out of it if the CIG money is gone.

Your fantasies are on par with "climbing out of a crate and rape other players" like this your stuff is not happening and not worth discussing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 23, 2017, 03:26:58 AM
Thank you both for elaborating. However, I'd like to ask Narrenbart to stop treating me like I'm stupid. There are some remarks there that were not necessary. Not everyone is born and raised in the USA or a native English speaker (as my grammar probably already showed). I'm trying to discuss something here, nothing more.

I'm trying to find out if is really possible that CR and friends are really getting away with this fiasco. So mismanaging this project for half of mil. salary a year and after a couple of years just filing for bankruptcy and that's that. So long and thanks for the fish.

For one, there are 2 companies in Europe. When CIG collapses, both the UK and D local (fiscal) authorities will look into that. So being the GM in the UK makes you accountable for what happens in the UK. That the mother company is in the USA doesn't mean a thing. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that whatever CIG/CR is playing right now, has been setup in a way that makes them intouchable. A lot of money has been spend on paying wages, rent etc. so that's gone with fair reason. But inappropiatly spend money (I meant CR buying a yacht with company money btw, not his private money) could play a factor.

There is nothing wrong with spending the company money the way you see fit. Even our IRS thinks so (with some exceptions of course). However, this only applies as long as you are making a profit. If you go bankrupt, everything will be scrutinized to take care of the bankruptcy (and that can take years) and yes, hindsight will be applied then. And even the conduct of the topmanagers, board of directors etc. will be checked and even they can be held (personally) responsible. These rules here are made so that one doesn't go around like in the Wild Wild West and then taking off with the money. I know in the USA things are easier. Of course, that doesn't make it better  :)

The other thing is that there might be legal things that are attached to the Kickstarter or pledging fundraising. If they violated laws the bankruptcy won't save them from that. So, maybe there is another angle.

When CIG collapses, (most of) the money will be gone. But I hate to think that CR and friends have had a luxery live for a couple a years and took out a lot of money and now can live happily ever after. I'd like to see that go to trial. But, as said by nightfire, it'll probably take years and end without a just outcome. And yes, it makes a difference if you fly to Monaco and rent a boat there from company money or your private money. However, usually these things are paid for with company money. I'm hoping they did.

I'm missing the thoughts and views of our Big Leader here, the man that has so much more background information he cannot share at the moment. You know, the one that was right. So Derek, jump in here would you please  :)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 23, 2017, 07:03:37 AM
That's not what I mean. You can be personally responsible overhere, if you have a so called one-man business (or 2-man partnership). You are responsible for the business then even with your house, personal belongings etc. etc.

But what I meant is that if your company (the corporate kind) goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy has to be handled by a court appointed lawyer and they have to investigate if the bankruptcy wasn't a fraud. So moving 1 mil. from the company to your private account and then filing for bankruptcy won't work. That 1 mil. will go back into the company. The other thing is that as a manager, you will be tested to see if you have conducted yourself in a proper business way. In the case of CIG, having all that backers money but spending it on a abnormal salary for yourself, buying stuff that has nothing to do with the business (say, CR bought a yacht in Monaco) and that sort of thing will make you accountable for the bankruptcy. In short, spending all the money and then claiming "sorry, I'm apparently a bad businessman with no talent for the trade" doesn't fly here.

Would this apply to CIG, one could argue that the top-salaries where way above normal and the abnormal part should therefore be paid back to CIG. If CR doesn't have that money anymore, he can sell all his assets and if that still isn't enough, the remaining debt will remain open to be paid later. So living a luxury live now on the backers money and then filing for bankruptcy because the funds dried up, no way he could pull that off.

Correct. And that's where things like "piercing the corporate veil" to get to the individuals personally, comes into play.

As I've said before, I don't envision ANY scenario whereby this tanks and they get away with it. It's too big, too notorious, and there is a LOT at stake.

Once investigators (private, State, Fed) get involved, all they have to do is follow the money. That's ALWAYS where things tend to fall apart quickly.

Look at the recent Fyre festival fiasco. That one didn't even take in half of what Star Citizen has, and barely a month after it collapsed, the Feds were involved, and the CEO arrested for fraud and a bunch of other things.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 24, 2017, 01:19:54 AM
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game/spaceflight

From the mind of Chris Roberts, acclaimed creator of Wing Commander and Freelancer, comes STAR CITIZEN. 100% crowd funded, Star Citizen aims to create a living, breathing science fiction universe with unparalleled immersion… and you’re invited to follow every step of development.

Blatantly untrue.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 24, 2017, 04:05:07 AM
That's not what I mean. You can be personally responsible overhere, if you have a so called one-man business (or 2-man partnership). You are responsible for the business then even with your house, personal belongings etc. etc.

But what I meant is that if your company (the corporate kind) goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy has to be handled by a court appointed lawyer and they have to investigate if the bankruptcy wasn't a fraud. So moving 1 mil. from the company to your private account and then filing for bankruptcy won't work. That 1 mil. will go back into the company. The other thing is that as a manager, you will be tested to see if you have conducted yourself in a proper business way. In the case of CIG, having all that backers money but spending it on a abnormal salary for yourself, buying stuff that has nothing to do with the business (say, CR bought a yacht in Monaco) and that sort of thing will make you accountable for the bankruptcy. In short, spending all the money and then claiming "sorry, I'm apparently a bad businessman with no talent for the trade" doesn't fly here.

Would this apply to CIG, one could argue that the top-salaries where way above normal and the abnormal part should therefore be paid back to CIG. If CR doesn't have that money anymore, he can sell all his assets and if that still isn't enough, the remaining debt will remain open to be paid later. So living a luxury live now on the backers money and then filing for bankruptcy because the funds dried up, no way he could pull that off.

Correct. And that's where things like "piercing the corporate veil" to get to the individuals personally, comes into play.

As I've said before, I don't envision ANY scenario whereby this tanks and they get away with it. It's too big, too notorious, and there is a LOT at stake.

Once investigators (private, State, Fed) get involved, all they have to do is follow the money. That's ALWAYS where things tend to fall apart quickly.

Look at the recent Fyre festival fiasco. That one didn't even take in half of what Star Citizen has, and barely a month after it collapsed, the Feds were involved, and the CEO arrested for fraud and a bunch of other things.

Literally putting people's lives at stake whilst trapping them on an island with no food, water or other basic amenities isn't comparable with failing to create a video game to the extent you hoped. Come on now.

I also find your assumption of inevitability as disingenuous. There isn't a case to answer unless development stops. This hasn't and isn't going to happen, as they will cut staff, should the need actually arise, and get something out of the door.

You've been mentioning feds and government buildings for quite a long time now, as long as you've spouted their having no money left, have we passed the two year anniversary by now? How much longer can they continue under this intense federal investigation and having no money do you think?

How can they manage to run a company burning through 'x' million dollars a month with no money left for two years?

Your assertions are non sensical. Proven via time.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 24, 2017, 04:28:17 AM
You've been mentioning feds and government buildings for quite a long time now, as long as you've spouted their having no money left, have we passed the two year anniversary by now? How much longer can they continue under this intense federal investigation and having no money do you think?

How can they manage to run a company burning through 'x' million dollars a month with no money left for two years?

Your assertions are non sensical. Proven via time.

You realize they have just leveraged all of their asserts on a relatively small loan? Hardly the actions of a company flush with cash. They have unlimited troughs of cash you'd like us to believe - so why take out loans secured against everything they have?

It's been established time and time again; through warbonds, loans, non-stop ship sales and failure to meet any large deadline that CIG are cash-starved and have no way to survive their next 10 years (10 years is absolute minimum they will need) of development. It's clear, it's been established and right now you're operating on a trash-tier shill model to even argue against any of it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 24, 2017, 05:55:09 AM
You've been mentioning feds and government buildings for quite a long time now, as long as you've spouted their having no money left, have we passed the two year anniversary by now? How much longer can they continue under this intense federal investigation and having no money do you think?

How can they manage to run a company burning through 'x' million dollars a month with no money left for two years?

Your assertions are non sensical. Proven via time.

You realize they have just leveraged all of their asserts on a relatively small loan? Hardly the actions of a company flush with cash. They have unlimited troughs of cash you'd like us to believe - so why take out loans secured against everything they have?

It's been established time and time again; through warbonds, loans, non-stop ship sales and failure to meet any large deadline that CIG are cash-starved and have no way to survive their next 10 years (10 years is absolute minimum they will need) of development. It's clear, it's been established and right now you're operating on a trash-tier shill model to even argue against any of it.

They used the company assets to leverage the best possible interest rate, in fact that was how and why it makes sense to do it. They got a fraction above Bank of England base rates so the lender makes money and CIG get a net save. It's not rocket science. The larger and safer the collateral, the lower the rate the bank charges, less risk of not getting their money back. It's the same reason why those with a poor credit rating get bad interest rates on lending. It's more risky.

Those things you mentioned prove no such thing. Any company needs cash flow for reasons other than being about to collapse. Getting contracts for renting premises, for example, is impossible without demonstrable income streams.

I remember when it was 'guaranteed' CIG wouldn't last 2 to 3 months and that was well over 18 months ago. It was also claimed there wouldn't be any more citizencons after last year but there's one coming up quite soon. It's recently been claimed this will be their last Gamescom. I'm sensing a pattern. One of made up scaremongering.

How many more times will Derek claim they're out of money before you realise he doesn't have a damn clue how much money they have? He's been doing it for years. They're still going. Inferring your own reasons for business practices just shows your confirmation bias.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 24, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
I'm sensing a pattern. One of made up scaremongering.

How many more times will Derek claim they're out of money before you realise he doesn't have a damn clue how much money they have? He's been doing it for years. They're still going. Inferring your own reasons for business practices just shows your confirmation bias.

Scaremongering? Why would anyone be interested in scaremongering here? It's not like CIG is traded on the stock market and we're all sitting on huge short positions and are hell-bent on talking the stock down in order to rake in a pile of cash. It's quite the opposite: if CIG goes down, we all lose – either we lose pledged money, or a great game to buy and play, or both.

So I don't see who profits from scaremongering here. Ok, Derek's got a book to write which he can't publish if the game gets released and becomes a hit. But since that final release won't happen anytime soon (and I'm sure we all can agree on that), he'll either turn out to be right, or he'll have another decade or two of time to think about an alternative source of income until the game actually gets released. So I'm sure he's not too stressed out either.

As far as your "crying wolf for years" part of the argument goes, we see all the time how difficult it for experts and amateurs alike to forecast the precise timing of chaotic events like stock market crashes, elections, the weather and so on, even as all fundamentals and facts seem to point towards a particular development. Just because Derek may not succeed in predicting the exact year, month and day of CIG's demise either, that doesn't necessarily imply that his underlying research and reasoning is wrong.

Regarding "inferring your own reasons for business practices", you're guilty of the same crime. One side of the argument goes that CIG is cash-strapped and taking out the loan against huge collateral is a sign of desperation. But your own inference, that this is "business as usual" and merely an efficient move to save a buck or two in interest, is equally unproven at this point in time.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 24, 2017, 01:58:20 PM
You've been mentioning feds and government buildings for quite a long time now, as long as you've spouted their having no money left, have we passed the two year anniversary by now? How much longer can they continue under this intense federal investigation and having no money do you think?

How can they manage to run a company burning through 'x' million dollars a month with no money left for two years?

Your assertions are non sensical. Proven via time.

You realize they have just leveraged all of their asserts on a relatively small loan? Hardly the actions of a company flush with cash. They have unlimited troughs of cash you'd like us to believe - so why take out loans secured against everything they have?

It's been established time and time again; through warbonds, loans, non-stop ship sales and failure to meet any large deadline that CIG are cash-starved and have no way to survive their next 10 years (10 years is absolute minimum they will need) of development. It's clear, it's been established and right now you're operating on a trash-tier shill model to even argue against any of it.

They used the company assets to leverage the best possible interest rate, in fact that was how and why it makes sense to do it. They got a fraction above Bank of England base rates so the lender makes money and CIG get a net save. It's not rocket science. The larger and safer the collateral, the lower the rate the bank charges, less risk of not getting their money back. It's the same reason why those with a poor credit rating get bad interest rates on lending. It's more risky.

Those things you mentioned prove no such thing. Any company needs cash flow for reasons other than being about to collapse. Getting contracts for renting premises, for example, is impossible without demonstrable income streams.

I remember when it was 'guaranteed' CIG wouldn't last 2 to 3 months and that was well over 18 months ago. It was also claimed there wouldn't be any more citizencons after last year but there's one coming up quite soon. It's recently been claimed this will be their last Gamescom. I'm sensing a pattern. One of made up scaremongering.

How many more times will Derek claim they're out of money before you realise he doesn't have a damn clue how much money they have? He's been doing it for years. They're still going. Inferring your own reasons for business practices just shows your confirmation bias.


What do you think about the analysis of OldSchoolCmdr ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/68neg4/potential_backer_with_questions/dh8ww71/

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 24, 2017, 02:48:04 PM
A couple of years ago I worked for a company that in the end went bankrupt. I have seen all the tricks the big boss pulled to keep the company running by getting money. From somewhere, anywhere. Even grabbing 10K here to pay part of the debt overthere, just to make it another month. With every month running 500K through the company. Every month the tricks got more desperate and the results less. Now everything you see happing at CIG shows the same behaviour and desperation. The bankloan in the UK and the "cash only" jpg sales are good examples. There's nothing wise and prudent with those decisions, it's another desperate attempt to get cash.

But, CIG claims to have (had) 150 mil. The moment the money is (mostly) gone, CR can do 2 things:

- He can downsize (a lot). However, this would mean that development would slow down even further. So, he'd have to come up with some pretty good excuses to justify those 2 major things (no money and the slowdown). He'd prefer this route because it'll keep him on the right side of the promises made.
- He can let it all collapse and file for bankruptcy.

There are no other options. For what he now has got to show for, with all that money in all those years, nobody will invest another dime in CIG. My guess is that starting with major downsizing will be enough to make the income stream dry up pretty quick.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2017, 04:33:11 PM
That's not what I mean. You can be personally responsible overhere, if you have a so called one-man business (or 2-man partnership). You are responsible for the business then even with your house, personal belongings etc. etc.

But what I meant is that if your company (the corporate kind) goes bankrupt, the bankruptcy has to be handled by a court appointed lawyer and they have to investigate if the bankruptcy wasn't a fraud. So moving 1 mil. from the company to your private account and then filing for bankruptcy won't work. That 1 mil. will go back into the company. The other thing is that as a manager, you will be tested to see if you have conducted yourself in a proper business way. In the case of CIG, having all that backers money but spending it on a abnormal salary for yourself, buying stuff that has nothing to do with the business (say, CR bought a yacht in Monaco) and that sort of thing will make you accountable for the bankruptcy. In short, spending all the money and then claiming "sorry, I'm apparently a bad businessman with no talent for the trade" doesn't fly here.

Would this apply to CIG, one could argue that the top-salaries where way above normal and the abnormal part should therefore be paid back to CIG. If CR doesn't have that money anymore, he can sell all his assets and if that still isn't enough, the remaining debt will remain open to be paid later. So living a luxury live now on the backers money and then filing for bankruptcy because the funds dried up, no way he could pull that off.

Correct. And that's where things like "piercing the corporate veil" to get to the individuals personally, comes into play.

As I've said before, I don't envision ANY scenario whereby this tanks and they get away with it. It's too big, too notorious, and there is a LOT at stake.

Once investigators (private, State, Fed) get involved, all they have to do is follow the money. That's ALWAYS where things tend to fall apart quickly.

Look at the recent Fyre festival fiasco. That one didn't even take in half of what Star Citizen has, and barely a month after it collapsed, the Feds were involved, and the CEO arrested for fraud and a bunch of other things.

Literally putting people's lives at stake whilst trapping them on an island with no food, water or other basic amenities isn't comparable with failing to create a video game to the extent you hoped. Come on now.

I also find your assumption of inevitability as disingenuous. There isn't a case to answer unless development stops. This hasn't and isn't going to happen, as they will cut staff, should the need actually arise, and get something out of the door.

You've been mentioning feds and government buildings for quite a long time now, as long as you've spouted their having no money left, have we passed the two year anniversary by now? How much longer can they continue under this intense federal investigation and having no money do you think?

How can they manage to run a company burning through 'x' million dollars a month with no money left for two years?

Your assertions are non sensical. Proven via time.

Just going to quote this for preservation purposes only. I have no further comment.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2017, 04:37:55 PM
They used the company assets to leverage the best possible interest rate, in fact that was how and why it makes sense to do it.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
They got a fraction above Bank of England base rates so the lender makes money and CIG get a net save.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
The larger and safer the collateral, the lower the rate the bank charges, less risk of not getting their money back. It's the same reason why those with a poor credit rating get bad interest rates on lending. It's more risky.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
Those things you mentioned prove no such thing. Any company needs cash flow for reasons other than being about to collapse. Getting contracts for renting premises, for example, is impossible without demonstrable income streams.

A company with a balance sheet that's a going concern, would NEVER need to leverage ALL of its assets in order to get a loan. A small loan at that.

Quote
I remember when it was 'guaranteed' CIG wouldn't last 2 to 3 months and that was well over 18 months ago.

This again? Do you even know how "analysis" works? It's dependent on data at hand and conditions at time of analysis. Look it up.

And if you guys weren't still giving them money, do you even think they would be around today? That's precisely how Sunk Cost Fallacy works.

Quote
It was also claimed there wouldn't be any more citizencons after last year but there's one coming up quite soon. It's recently been claimed this will be their last Gamescom. I'm sensing a pattern. One of made up scaremongering.

See above

Quote
How many more times will Derek claim they're out of money before you realise he doesn't have a damn clue how much money they have? He's been doing it for years. They're still going. Inferring your own reasons for business practices just shows your confirmation bias.

Nobody has a "damn clue" how much money they have. Not even the backers who DO have a right to know.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2017, 04:42:47 PM
Ok, Derek's got a book to write which he can't publish if the game gets released and becomes a hit. But since that final release won't happen anytime soon (and I'm sure we all can agree on that), he'll either turn out to be right, or he'll have another decade or two of time to think about an alternative source of income until the game actually gets released. So I'm sure he's not too stressed out either.

My book has nothing to do with the success or failure of the project. The book contains the many failings, and accurately documents all the promises, deceits, lies, and even things that aren't public. The ONLY reason why I am not publishing it until the final curtain, is because even though it's an e-book (with a coffee table print option), I won't want to go back and update it to match how things turned out. e.g. From what I know, I fully expect someone to go to jail over this project failing. Sure I can finish and publish my book after the collapse or "release", but I would very much like to add who went to jail, why, and how.

There is so much that isn't even public knowledge yet, that the few people who have read the manuscript, keep asking me why I don't just publish it now, and update it later. I don't want to do that because I want Chris Roberts to be the manufacturer the project's demise.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2017, 04:45:09 PM
What do you think about the analysis of OldSchoolCmdr ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/68neg4/potential_backer_with_questions/dh8ww71/

What is supposed to be at that link? I only see an argument with Jester86, the mod of  /r/dereksmart
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 24, 2017, 04:47:13 PM
Yikes. It's almost as if I was right when I said the schedule was bullshit and they haven't updated the 08/25 release date two weeks in a row because of on-going sales.

We won't start Evocati this week (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starcitizen_Leaks/comments/6p9beq/will_leverett_we_wont_start_evocati_30_this_week/)

Quote
Good morning ETF!
We've entered the start of the Production Schedule's range for 3.0 Evocati testing. We won't start this week, and it's admittedly too early to know whether we'll be able to go next week. Most of you have been around long enough to know that's always a gametime decision anyway.   

All the same, we have been working diligently on the inclusion/exclusion process since late last week to make sure the right files are in (and wrong files are kept out). This is a necessary process in building a new branch, and historically it has taken about three weeks once we've started this process to get a build to Evocati. Might be a bit longer considering the scope of 3.0, and we'll only find out as we go along.

There are quite a few blockers to remedy before we go to Evocati, such as completing UI, restoring readouts on many HUDs, crashes, etc. The good news is that many teams are in their final stretches of their feature tasks, with quite a few others already done, and we're in deep on bugfixing.

I'll make sure to start providing regular updates, but in the meantime, have a great weekend ETF!

Will "Soulcrusher" Leverett
Director of Player Relations
Avocado Enthusiast

(http://imgur.com/RYMkNEq.jpg)

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 24, 2017, 05:25:20 PM
Oh boy oh boy oh boy..... hang on to everything you got boys, but not your wallet of course, because it's is almost here now. Any day now, we could publish something spectacular that you have never seen before. We don't know yet what it'll be exactly and we also don't know what will be in it and we also don't know when we'll release it and we also don't know what we'll still need to do and we also don't know when we'll do it all but that doesn't matter because it will be fantastic. And we also know that everything you have paid for and waited for all those years won't be in it. And even if it is in it, it probably won't work. To fix that, we need more money. So don't miss out on another disappointing thing and buy something. Heck, just give us the money and don't ask for anything in return because you know that's all you're going to get. Nothing. So whatsjawiatinfor? Throw in your money and expect nothing in return. Just remember, the nothing in return is here any day now....

Director of Player Relations  :vince:

When two backers are getting into a relation, they need him to show the way. The way out, because they were to blind to do it in time...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 24, 2017, 09:23:44 PM
Quote
Most of you have been around long enough to know that's always a gametime decision anyway.

Yeah, like, since 2012  :cripes: No need to explain "gametime decisions" to us anymore  :what:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 24, 2017, 09:29:08 PM
The book contains the many failings, and accurately documents all the promises, deceits, lies, and even things that aren't public. The ONLY reason why I am not publishing it until the final curtain, is because even though it's an e-book (with a coffee table print option)
Given the sheer amount of what has happened, I’ll have to go with the e-book. Unless the print option also includes the cast concrete coffee table to match  :laugh:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 24, 2017, 11:15:22 PM
They used the company assets to leverage the best possible interest rate, in fact that was how and why it makes sense to do it.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
They got a fraction above Bank of England base rates so the lender makes money and CIG get a net save.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
The larger and safer the collateral, the lower the rate the bank charges, less risk of not getting their money back. It's the same reason why those with a poor credit rating get bad interest rates on lending. It's more risky.

FALSE. And you have NO supporting evidence of that.

Quote
Those things you mentioned prove no such thing. Any company needs cash flow for reasons other than being about to collapse. Getting contracts for renting premises, for example, is impossible without demonstrable income streams.

A company with a balance sheet that's a going concern, would NEVER need to leverage ALL of its assets in order to get a loan. A small loan at that.

Quote
I remember when it was 'guaranteed' CIG wouldn't last 2 to 3 months and that was well over 18 months ago.

This again? Do you even know how "analysis" works? It's dependent on data at hand and conditions at time of analysis. Look it up.

And if you guys weren't still giving them money, do you even think they would be around today? That's precisely how Sunk Cost Fallacy works.

Quote
It was also claimed there wouldn't be any more citizencons after last year but there's one coming up quite soon. It's recently been claimed this will be their last Gamescom. I'm sensing a pattern. One of made up scaremongering.

See above

Quote
How many more times will Derek claim they're out of money before you realise he doesn't have a damn clue how much money they have? He's been doing it for years. They're still going. Inferring your own reasons for business practices just shows your confirmation bias.

Nobody has a "damn clue" how much money they have. Not even the backers who DO have a right to know.

I'm sorry but it's not false and I do have evidence to support that.

"Generally, when a loan is secured by collateral, the risk of default by the borrower decreases. For example, a loan secured by a car typically has a lower interest rate than an unsecured loan, such as credit card debt. Also, the more valuable the collateral, the lower the risk."

From: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/community-dividend/how-do-lenders-set-interest-rates-on-loans

Ortwin's forum post is evidence, you may not believe him but that's irrelevant to the fact it exists as evidence. They didn't 'need to' as you put it, it saved money though so they did it. Is it a bad thing to save money?

In respect to to your analysis of the project and your predictions of financial collapse I find it very strange that you failed to notice them getting 30+million dollars a year for the last few years in a row. That's some pretty damn poor analysis. Did you honestly think your tweet and blog storm would halt the funding in any appreciable way or did your 'analysis' fail to take into account historical levels of funding? Either way, embarrassing.

If you're not sure of your analysis then perhaps you shouldn't 'guarantee' things off of the back of them? You certainly sounded sure the collapse was imminent...2 years ago.

Backers are not entitled to know how much money they have left, that's a very strange thing to say. They are entitled to full financial disclosure should production of the game stop. This hasn't happened, so no financial disclosure.

"Accordingly, you agree that any unearned portion of your Pledge shall not be refundable until and unless RSI has ceased development and failed to deliver the relevant pledge items and/or the Game to you."

Now I'm fully aware they've changed the ToS, as is perfectly normal, over time but that part has stayed the same, minus the estimated delivery date. It's only ever been should development cease that those clauses kick in.

Let us see how long they last, let us see if your current predictions are better than your previous, somewhat laughable, attempts. I can stick around a while. It's fun here.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 25, 2017, 12:07:13 AM
Ortwin's forum post is evidence, you may not believe him but that's irrelevant to the fact it exists as evidence.

 :lol: Seriously? Sorry, Ortwin’s post is not „evidence“; it’s merely a claim, an assertion. And calling the supposed existence of evidence a fact does not make the evidence itself a fact.

„Evidence“ would be Ortwin disclosing CIG's internal documents relating to the loan decision, such as the financial calculations which demonstrated possible savings by taking out a loan, as well as the actual loan and interest rate conditions offered by the banks they contacted for this matter. As long as we don’t get see hard facts like these, Ortwin’s word is worth nothing. Or, as the saying goes: „show, don’t tell“.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 25, 2017, 12:49:20 AM
Where is the evidence that they indeed have collected over 150 mil. over the past years? The only figure made public is the counter on their website. Fact chance that one is correct.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 25, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Where is the evidence that they indeed have collected over 150 mil. over the past years? The only figure made public is the counter on their website. Fact chance that one is correct.

Where else have they got the money to fund four studios and 300+ employees? People are getting paid. Where do you think the money for that has come from?

Ortwin's forum post is evidence, you may not believe him but that's irrelevant to the fact it exists as evidence.

 :lol: Seriously? Sorry, Ortwin’s post is not „evidence“; it’s merely a claim, an assertion. And calling the supposed existence of evidence a fact does not make the evidence itself a fact.

„Evidence“ would be Ortwin disclosing CIG's internal documents relating to the loan decision, such as the financial calculations which demonstrated possible savings by taking out a loan, as well as the actual loan and interest rate conditions offered by the banks they contacted for this matter. As long as we don’t get see hard facts like these, Ortwin’s word is worth nothing. Or, as the saying goes: „show, don’t tell“.

So a publicly posted claim from the person who brokered the deal is somehow less believable than a totally unsupported proposition from a direct competitor who has stated he's trying 'burn them all down' before staging a 2 year hate and harassment campaign?

Ok, you've buttered your bread. Let's see which side ends up hitting the carpet.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 25, 2017, 02:22:27 AM

Ok, you've buttered your bread. Let's see which side ends up hitting the carpet.

Ah wait and see - the undeniable forte of the Star Citizen backer. You can wait and see all you want but I don't need to wait and I've easily seen enough. I guess I'm just less naive than you idk but that's not your fault.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 25, 2017, 02:36:15 AM

Ok, you've buttered your bread. Let's see which side ends up hitting the carpet.

Ah wait and see - the undeniable forte of the Star Citizen backer. You can wait and see all you want but I don't need to wait and I've easily seen enough. I guess I'm just less naive than you idk but that's not your fault.

That's all we can do. They're either going to pull it off in a way that is perceived as success or they're not. I'm happy to wait. You're not. Fair enough. I'm not making stuff up to suit my narrative though. I'm no whale. I'm no idiot, blinded by emotions either. Que Sera Sera.

The evidence I see is a game getting made, slowly, but it's happening. It's a game I think I'd enjoy playing and I pre purchased knowing full well I might not get my dream game or any game. I've backed over 30 kick-started games. Some good, some bad, some gone forever. It's a risk I was happy to take.

I'm not going to try to tell you the game will be amazing or anything, I don't know what's going to happen and I won't make absolute statements about an unknown. Waiting is all we got. So I shall wait...and wait...and wait some more. I've got plenty of other games to play.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 07:33:40 AM
I'm sorry but it's not false and I do have evidence to support that.

No you don't.

Quote
"Generally, when a loan is secured by collateral, the risk of default by the borrower decreases. For example, a loan secured by a car typically has a lower interest rate than an unsecured loan, such as credit card debt. Also, the more valuable the collateral, the lower the risk."

That's NOT evidence pertaining to the F42-UK loan.

Quote
Ortwin's forum post is evidence, you may not believe him but that's irrelevant to the fact it exists as evidence.

LOL!!! You can't be serious. That's NOT how evidence works.

That's a company statement, by an exec who has every reason to LIE to backers, as they have been doing since the start of this project.

Quote
In respect to to your analysis of the project and your predictions of financial collapse I find it very strange that you failed to notice them getting 30+million dollars a year for the last few years in a row. That's some pretty damn poor analysis. Did you honestly think your tweet and blog storm would halt the funding in any appreciable way or did your 'analysis' fail to take into account historical levels of funding? Either way, embarrassing.

You see, that's the mistake that you guys keep making. Nobody CARES about how much money lunatics stuck in Sunk Cost Fallacy, give them. All we care about is whether or not they have the capacity and capability to DELIVER the games promised. So far, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the argument that they DO.

In fact, speaking of analysis, back in July 2015 I said that there is no way in hell they could ever hope to develop and deliver the game as pitched, let alone for less than $150M, and without a capable engine.

So far, THREE of those have been proven to be true, as EVIDENCED by the fact that they have chopped of parts of what was promised, they haven't delivered 15% of what was promised, they are now at $155M with neither of the TWO games delivered, and they've switched engines.

Quote
If you're not sure of your analysis then perhaps you shouldn't 'guarantee' things off of the back of them? You certainly sounded sure the collapse was imminent...2 years ago.

Look up the word "analysis", then come back and let's have a discussion about how that works, and why the words "sure", "certainty" etc never appear in that definition or premise.

Quote
Backers are not entitled to know how much money they have left, that's a very strange thing to say. They are entitled to full financial disclosure should production of the game stop. This hasn't happened, so no financial disclosure.

Go back and read the ToS (all versions of it (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/star-citizen-tos/)).

Quote
Now I'm fully aware they've changed the ToS, as is perfectly normal,

There is NOTHING that's "perfectly normal" about changing a ToS which takes away rights that backers once had. Again, you can't be serious.

Quote
Let us see how long they last, let us see if your current predictions are better than your previous, somewhat laughable, attempts. I can stick around a while. It's fun here.

As I said before, we'll see. The good thing is that this isn't Reddit, where you guys can shout down people, down vote them etc. Everything posted here, is based on reasonable discussions and exchange; all of which we can call up at any time to show who was right, wrong etc.

I know - with unflinching certainty - that I am right about the fate of the project. It's only a matter of time. And if you guys weren't still funding it, anyone with common sense, and the capacity to use it, would know that it would have collapsed by now if a group of whales weren't still funding it. The most glaring evidence of that is as of this writing, at $155M in funding, neither game is delivered, though it was all fully funded and over-scoped back in Nov 2014, to the tune of $65M. And now it's 2.9 years later + $90M over budget. Yeah, because that's normal.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 07:43:38 AM
Where is the evidence that they indeed have collected over 150 mil. over the past years? The only figure made public is the counter on their website. Fact chance that one is correct.

Yes that's another thing that they keep going on about. It's not evidence. It's data provided by CIG. A company that has EVERY reason to lie about it, for marketing purposes, and in order to show health in the project. Which is what keeps whales throwing money at it.

From the Google Sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/htmlview#) you can see what they "claim" to be making each month. It's not evidence. It's data pulled directly from CIG and which doesn't take into account subscriptions, loans, investment amounts, refunds. So, right off the bat, we know it's NOT accurate. And that's something that sources who would know, have said to me and others (media), time and time again.

And in fact, whale fatigue is already setting in. Take a look at the funding trends for 2016, compared to 2017, and it's easy to see that they are going to raise much less than the year before. Which is why they're now pulling out all the stops for 3.0 at GamesCom and CitizenCon. Even the metrics for the recent Nox and Cyclone sales, are not the blockbusters (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals) they were supposed to be, even with 3.0 coming.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 07:53:30 AM
Where else have they got the money to fund four studios and 300+ employees? People are getting paid. Where do you think the money for that has come from?

Obviously from whatever it is they are making each month, combined with whatever loans we don't know about. If you think that they need less than $3M per month to fund this project, when in fact the UK alone is using almost $25M of their yearly revenue, you're insane.

Quote
So a publicly posted claim from the person who brokered the deal is somehow less believable than a totally unsupported proposition from a direct competitor

Yes. And?

My position doesn't have to be "supported". The FACT is that, in the absence of EVIDENCE to support his claims, said claims are no more credible than mine, or anyone else's who has been saying that the loan reeked of desperation, and is akin to a payday loan.

Quote
who has stated he's trying 'burn them all down'

Actually, that's false. The "burn them down" is related to JPEGs of Shitizens who have been waging an Internet war of attrition against me. We even have a meme. Here, let me show it to you to jog your convenient memory.

(https://imgur.com/utGShoS.jpg)

Quote
before staging a 2 year hate and harassment campaign?

That's also patently false. As much as you guys would love to re-write history, you just can't. The sequence of events (http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/star-citizen-how-i-got-involved/) are backed up by actual FACTS, which are not open to interpretation, hyperbole, or confusion.

- In July 2015 I wrote a blog saying they had over-scoped the project, and doomed it to failure
- The media propagated the blog, much to the ire of CIG and it's Shitizen backers
- CIG closed my account & refunded it
- CIG issued a statement lying about why they did the above
- Shitizens embarked on a war of attrition by proxy obo of CIG

You see, that's how the words FACT and EVIDENCE come into play.

And YOU guys are the ones engaged in a "hate and harassment" campaign against people, especially me (you all have an entire sub-Reddit dedicated to harassing and attacking me), who are writing bad stuff about a fucking video game. Yet you're all completely shocked that the end result is that the Star Citizen community has the WORST rep thus far in gaming. And for those reasons, even those who have nothing invested in the project, would like nothing more than to see the project fail (it will, there is not debating this) so they can laugh at you guys.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/889863127264894977
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 25, 2017, 01:52:44 PM
Where else have they got the money to fund four studios and 300+ employees? People are getting paid. Where do you think the money for that has come from?

Obviously from whatever it is they are making each month, combined with whatever loans we don't know about. If you think that they need less than $3M per month to fund this project, when in fact the UK alone is using almost $25M of their yearly revenue, you're insane.

Quote
So a publicly posted claim from the person who brokered the deal is somehow less believable than a totally unsupported proposition from a direct competitor

Yes. And?

My position doesn't have to be "supported". The FACT is that, in the absence of EVIDENCE to support his claims, said claims are no more credible than mine, or anyone else's who has been saying that the loan reeked of desperation, and is akin to a payday loan.

Quote
who has stated he's trying 'burn them all down'

Actually, that's false. The "burn them down" is related to JPEGs of Shitizens who have been waging an Internet war of attrition against me. We even have a meme. Here, let me show it to you to jog your convenient memory.

(https://imgur.com/utGShoS.jpg)

Quote
before staging a 2 year hate and harassment campaign?

That's also patently false. As much as you guys would love to re-write history, you just can't. The sequence of events (http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/star-citizen-how-i-got-involved/) are backed up by actual FACTS, which are not open to interpretation, hyperbole, or confusion.

- In July 2015 I wrote a blog saying they had over-scoped the project, and doomed it to failure
- The media propagated the blog, much to the ire of CIG and it's Shitizen backers
- CIG closed my account & refunded it
- CIG issued a statement lying about why they did the above
- Shitizens embarked on a war of attrition by proxy obo of CIG

You see, that's how the words FACT and EVIDENCE come into play.

And YOU guys are the ones engaged in a "hate and harassment" campaign against people, especially me (you all have an entire sub-Reddit dedicated to harassing and attacking me), who are writing bad stuff about a fucking video game. Yet you're all completely shocked that the end result is that the Star Citizen community has the WORST rep thus far in gaming. And for those reasons, even those who have nothing invested in the project, would like nothing more than to see the project fail (it will, there is not debating this) so they can laugh at you guys.

https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/889863127264894977

The guy questioned if they have the money they say they do. It's obvious they must be burning through a few million a month, you won't find me arguing that. It's obvious. But let's take your proposition that they have accumulated, what was it from your sources, 228 million in total, how many months does that give them?

If they haven't got that much but managed to invest well with their early, low overhead, HUGE profit, early couple of years, how many months is that? Can't know that one unfortunately.

About who's word I believe, well that's up to me.

I was not far off with my 'burn...' quote. But here is some evidence and a fact. https://archive.is/Co3Fz

(http://i.imgur.com/8QCQD74.jpg)

I just read your first blog. Around half of it was you talking about your own games, with comparisons. They refunded you for using their game to promote yours. Not using their platforms, it doesn't matter if you used the forum or whatever.

I don't appreciate you addressing me as some sort of group either, to be honest. I'm just a bloke. I'm not harrasing anyone. I'm not on twitter. Facebook is so my aging mother can see photos of her granddaughter and Star Citizen is just a video game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 02:25:46 PM
The guy questioned if they have the money they say they do. It's obvious they must be burning through a few million a month, you won't find me arguing that. It's obvious. But let's take your proposition that they have accumulated, what was it from your sources, 228 million in total, how many months does that give them?

If they haven't got that much but managed to invest well with their early, low overhead, HUGE profit, early couple of years, how many months is that? Can't know that one unfortunately.

That's not how math works. Just because they've raised a lot of money, doesn't mean they have a lot of it left. The yearly financials for F42-UK are evidence of that.

And you don't know anything about investments or lack thereof. You're just injecting wishful thinking to make yourself feel good about it, and to justify your argument. The fact is that they're not big enough to have money to spare in investments. Heck, they don't even own any of the buildings the studios are in. Instead, they are paying high rent in their respective locations.

Quote
About who's word I believe, well that's up to me.

Yeah, but nobody cares what you believe, you see. We all believe what we want to believe, and offer the opinions that we want.

Quote
I was not far off with my 'burn...' quote. But here is some evidence and a fact. https://archive.is/Co3Fz

No, you are not even close because you were misinterpreting it to mean that it was directed at CIG, when clearly it wasn't. I even posted a meme that uses the same text. The image you posted is also clearly indicative of this. But yet, here you are.

Quote
I just read your first blog. Around half of it was you talking about your own games, with comparisons.

Yes, and? Why would you ask a carpenter to write about brain surgery?

Quote
They refunded you for using their game to promote yours. Not using their platforms, it doesn't matter if you used the forum or whatever.

As hilarious and ludicrous as that sounds, you actually put that in writing.

What do you think would happen if each time someone posted a review of a product, the company went back and yanked their product from the customer? e.g. what do you think would happen if you bought a game on Steam, wrote a bad review, then the publisher invalidated your Steam key?

Why didn't Frontier cancel my account and refund my money? I did mention them in the same article as an example. Why didn't CryTek invalidate my CryEngine license (yes, like UE4, I have it - free, back before they even started distributing to the public) license for my writing about how it is inadequate for the game?

The notion that I can't write and use my own tech and products to explain my position as to WHY they couldn't possibly build that game - even LoD isn't even a competitor (shockingly, you missed that part) due to them being different games - is the most hilarious part of your argument. And that a company has every right to refund my money because I wrote a dissenting opinion, why using my own experiences to outline why I believe that I am right and that the project could NEVER be made a was pitched.

Quote
I don't appreciate you addressing me as some sort of group either, to be honest. I'm just a bloke. I'm not harrasing anyone. I'm not on twitter. Facebook is so my aging mother can see photos of her granddaughter and Star Citizen is just a video game.

I don't care if you were a one eyed Elf living in Ireland. Your writings exhibit all the traits of the guys parked on Reddit writing the same nonsensical drivel. Plus, you were the first to start throwing around "hate" and "harassment" accusations. Now you want to cry foul? Cry me a river.

Stick to discussions without the attack innuendos, and you won't have to deal with comparisons. A lot of people don't post here. From the metrics, more people read, rather than post. So it's not like there's so much crap that's going to get lost in translation. People come here for meaningful discussions, regardless of opinions. But in your case (and some others, long since banned), the longer it goes on for, the more you are challenged, the more likely you are to go off the deep end. And you're already teetering.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 02:37:39 PM
Nicholas over at SA, finally got his analysis up. I have updated my post (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg2049#msg2049) with it.

Just watch, as soon as the sale is over, that 08/25 date which hasn't changed for two weeks now, will automagically change. And BOOM!! we're in Sept.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 25, 2017, 03:31:21 PM
They can close your account for any reason they like. They don't even need a reason. You don't own a thing other than a license to use digital assets in a video game that remain the property of CIG at all times.

I thought you'd read the ToS/EULA.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 25, 2017, 03:37:57 PM
I don't care if you were a one eyed Elf living in Ireland.

Oh, but I would. I'd pop over in a minute to see that  :woop:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 04:06:42 PM
They can close your account for any reason they like. They don't even need a reason. You don't own a thing other than a license to use digital assets in a video game that remain the property of CIG at all times.

I thought you'd read the ToS/EULA.

And who is disputing any of that? YOU are the one who brought up a reason that was nonsensical.

They probably didn't read their own ToS either? Otherwise, why did they feel the need to issue a press statement, giving a reason (a flimsy one at that) for refunding me?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 25, 2017, 06:24:33 PM
Well, don't say I didn't do anything for you all. So the Star Citizen sub-Reddit has "discovered" Freedom Of Speech.

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6pkluc/meta_rule_change_restricted_avocado_posts/

I wrote about that Evocati nonsense back in April 2016 "Star Citizen The Extinction Level Event (http://dereksmart.com/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/)"
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 12:53:38 AM
They can close your account for any reason they like. They don't even need a reason. You don't own a thing other than a license to use digital assets in a video game that remain the property of CIG at all times.

I thought you'd read the ToS/EULA.

And who is disputing any of that? YOU are the one who brought up a reason that was nonsensical.

They probably didn't read their own ToS either? Otherwise, why did they feel the need to issue a press statement, giving a reason (a flimsy one at that) for refunding me?

Do you have a link to a press statement or are we talking about Ben's forum post where he explains their 'non sensical reason' as to why you were refunded?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 04:56:27 AM
The guy questioned if they have the money they say they do. It's obvious they must be burning through a few million a month, you won't find me arguing that. It's obvious. But let's take your proposition that they have accumulated, what was it from your sources, 228 million in total, how many months does that give them?

If they haven't got that much but managed to invest well with their early, low overhead, HUGE profit, early couple of years, how many months is that? Can't know that one unfortunately.

That's not how math works. Just because they've raised a lot of money, doesn't mean they have a lot of it left. The yearly financials for F42-UK are evidence of that.

And you don't know anything about investments or lack thereof. You're just injecting wishful thinking to make yourself feel good about it, and to justify your argument. The fact is that they're not big enough to have money to spare in investments. Heck, they don't even own any of the buildings the studios are in. Instead, they are paying high rent in their respective locations.

Quote
About who's word I believe, well that's up to me.

Yeah, but nobody cares what you believe, you see. We all believe what we want to believe, and offer the opinions that we want.

Quote
I was not far off with my 'burn...' quote. But here is some evidence and a fact. https://archive.is/Co3Fz

No, you are not even close because you were misinterpreting it to mean that it was directed at CIG, when clearly it wasn't. I even posted a meme that uses the same text. The image you posted is also clearly indicative of this. But yet, here you are.

Quote
I just read your first blog. Around half of it was you talking about your own games, with comparisons.

Yes, and? Why would you ask a carpenter to write about brain surgery?

Quote
They refunded you for using their game to promote yours. Not using their platforms, it doesn't matter if you used the forum or whatever.

As hilarious and ludicrous as that sounds, you actually put that in writing.

What do you think would happen if each time someone posted a review of a product, the company went back and yanked their product from the customer? e.g. what do you think would happen if you bought a game on Steam, wrote a bad review, then the publisher invalidated your Steam key?

Why didn't Frontier cancel my account and refund my money? I did mention them in the same article as an example. Why didn't CryTek invalidate my CryEngine license (yes, like UE4, I have it - free, back before they even started distributing to the public) license for my writing about how it is inadequate for the game?

The notion that I can't write and use my own tech and products to explain my position as to WHY they couldn't possibly build that game - even LoD isn't even a competitor (shockingly, you missed that part) due to them being different games - is the most hilarious part of your argument. And that a company has every right to refund my money because I wrote a dissenting opinion, why using my own experiences to outline why I believe that I am right and that the project could NEVER be made a was pitched.

Quote
I don't appreciate you addressing me as some sort of group either, to be honest. I'm just a bloke. I'm not harrasing anyone. I'm not on twitter. Facebook is so my aging mother can see photos of her granddaughter and Star Citizen is just a video game.

I don't care if you were a one eyed Elf living in Ireland. Your writings exhibit all the traits of the guys parked on Reddit writing the same nonsensical drivel. Plus, you were the first to start throwing around "hate" and "harassment" accusations. Now you want to cry foul? Cry me a river.

Stick to discussions without the attack innuendos, and you won't have to deal with comparisons. A lot of people don't post here. From the metrics, more people read, rather than post. So it's not like there's so much crap that's going to get lost in translation. People come here for meaningful discussions, regardless of opinions. But in your case (and some others, long since banned), the longer it goes on for, the more you are challenged, the more likely you are to go off the deep end. And you're already teetering.

That is how mathematics works. F42 financials are not evidence of having no money left. They sent money from the US to F42. How does sending money equate to evidence of having none? That makes no sense at all.

You have to accept overheads in the first 2 years were low yet they still brought in 50+million. This means millions and millions of dollars in profit. That money doesn't just disappear.

If nobody cares what I think, why are you replying with multi quotes? Obviously you care, even if it's a tiny bit.

If you threaten to burn jpegs whilst referring to assets created and owned by CIG then the quote does relate to CIG. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I mentioned hate and harassment because that, in my own opinion, is what you've been engaged in. How many tweets a week does it take before it's harassment? How many cease and desist letters does it take before it's harassnent? How vile do your accusations have to be before it's hate? Tickle porn and being an escort for Sandi. Incompetence and being a bastard for Chris. Sounds pretty hateful to me.

I notice you haven't tagged them or the company on twitter since you got that letter. You used to tag them all the time. I wonder why that is.

Not sure what I'm teetering over but ok. I shall endeavour to stabilise myself.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Ghostmaker on July 26, 2017, 08:33:09 AM
A whole bunch of nattering between Serendipity and DSmart I'm not going to repost

I think you need to sit down for a minute and take a deep breath.

Allow me to quote something I wrote here, a while back: "If Derek Smart dropped dead tomorrow, it would not change the current status of CIG or SC."

There are ALWAYS going to be gadflies, and naysmiths, and critics. If you can't take a little bloody nose, go crawl back and hide under the bed. (/delancie)

The hard facts are that SC is behind schedule, it has taken in a ridiculous amount of money (comparable to an AAA title), and it has not been released. This is not up for question. It's indisputable.

And Chris Roberts's past is haunting him in this regard. People look back at Freelancer, and they wonder 'Was it just bad luck? Or does he know -- or worse, NOT know -- what he's doing?'.

And I liked Freelancer, mind you.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 10:24:46 AM
A whole bunch of nattering between Serendipity and DSmart I'm not going to repost

I think you need to sit down for a minute and take a deep breath.

Allow me to quote something I wrote here, a while back: "If Derek Smart dropped dead tomorrow, it would not change the current status of CIG or SC."

There are ALWAYS going to be gadflies, and naysmiths, and critics. If you can't take a little bloody nose, go crawl back and hide under the bed. (/delancie)

The hard facts are that SC is behind schedule, it has taken in a ridiculous amount of money (comparable to an AAA title), and it has not been released. This is not up for question. It's indisputable.

And Chris Roberts's past is haunting him in this regard. People look back at Freelancer, and they wonder 'Was it just bad luck? Or does he know -- or worse, NOT know -- what he's doing?'.

And I liked Freelancer, mind you.

What was envisaged as possible for the game changed. A lot. From POIs on planets visited via a cut scene to full planetary bodies PGd. The level of funding was as much a surprise to CIG as anyone. They said they'd use the money to make a better game. The delay from the original time frame projection is nothing more than CIG sticking to their word.

Of course they could have hidden the pledge counter and produced the original, comparatively simple game, pocketed tens of millions of dollars and walked off whistling. They didn't. They saw the funding going astronomical and decided to spend it all on making the best game they could.

This is why 'delays' don't bother me. It means they're taking their time to try and create something special. This, to me, is a good thing. I'd much, much rather have something great in a couple of years than something mediocre mow. YMMV of course.

Can they do it? We don't know. Derek doesn't know. I don't know. You don't know. Chris doesn't know. But they're trying to do it. I'll be cheering them on all the way with an objective eye watching and learning as much as I can.

Maybe they'll get more money from me, maybe they won't. Can't wait to play 3.0 though, it's an exciting step toward, what might just be, an excellent gaming experience.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 26, 2017, 10:56:07 AM
O dear god, you must be joking  :vince:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 11:51:25 AM
Why would I joke? Maybe I'm just different to you.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 26, 2017, 12:19:18 PM
Most likely, but you can't be that stupid. There is no positive defending anything anymore about CIG/CR/SC.

I honestly believe they started with good intentions and then the money came flooding in. So they started thinking bigger. And even more money came flooding in. And then they went overboard. Totally megalomaniac. And fucked everything up. And then came the problems. Oops, we can't do this. We don't have the technique and the skills and even if we did, the topmanagement is totally incompetent, but of course, they don't think so. So now what? Well, start blatantly lying about everything so that the money keeps coming in. And that's all. As long we have enough money, all the problems will go away eventually.

Of course, that didn't work. So now the money stops coming in and the problems are still there. No game because no technique and no skills and no more hiding. Everything wrong slowly becomes more clear. Every action makes it more obvious that it all is now on the verge of collapsing. They cannot build this game. Not just as promised, but not at all. The only thing they will deliver from now on will be disappointment after disappointment. Thus losing backers, thus losing income, thus generating more disappointments et cetera.

They're not taking the time to creating something special. They can't create what they promised and they can't go back. To tell they can't do it will be the immediate end of it all so they have to keep on going. There won't be something great in a couple of years. If this is all they have to show for so far, how in earth will that improve with another couple of years? Magic will start to be generally available by mid 2018?

If you still believe that this project can have a positive outcome than you're f-up the head beyond rescue. How can you see all that is happening and still think that something good is going to come out of it all? Why so desperately trying to see something that's so obvious not there?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 12:29:37 PM
Well I like to think I'm not stupid and there's very little wrong with my head, thanks for the concern. I've read and watched a lot from all sides of this project from RSI to SA to Derek's blogs to media articles, Reddit, fan casts and even the open house. I've read articles about game design and cryengine and tried to understand as much as possible. What they're attempting is not impossible in my opinion, or at least enough of what they want to achieve to make it good+.

I don't think they're starved for cash and won't be for long enough to create something cool. You don't. Neither stance makes either of us messed up in the head, carnally or otherwise.

It's clichéd but true, wait and see.

Edit: Just to add I enjoy talking about Star Citizen, that's why I'm here. Still learning as much as possible from as many places as possible 😀
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 26, 2017, 01:01:19 PM
Why would I joke? Maybe I'm just different to you.

You demonstrate an enormous amount of faith in CIG’s ability to deliver the game. No matter which event or possible outcome is being discussed, you appear to be giving CIG the benefit of the doubt. There seems to be virtually nothing which makes you doubt that CIG has good intentions and the best interests of their backers at heart. You consistently seem to consider statements, promises and reasoning from CIG management to be unquestionable and beyond doubt.

I find this level of faith in a third party to which you have nothing more than a customer relation astounding. Normally, I’d expect such faith and devotion only from true religious believers and members of a church. But CIG and its promised game are not supposed to be a religion or a cult! Oh, wait…
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 02:38:43 PM
Why would I joke? Maybe I'm just different to you.

You demonstrate an enormous amount of faith in CIG’s ability to deliver the game. No matter which event or possible outcome is being discussed, you appear to be giving CIG the benefit of the doubt. There seems to be virtually nothing which makes you doubt that CIG has good intentions and the best interests of their backers at heart. You consistently seem to consider statements, promises and reasoning from CIG management to be unquestionable and beyond doubt.

I find this level of faith in a third party to which you have nothing more than a customer relation astounding. Normally, I’d expect such faith and devotion only from true religious believers and members of a church. But CIG and its promised game are not supposed to be a religion or a cult! Oh, wait…

I believe they'll deliver a game that I'll enjoy playing at some point in time. Probably two, but I don't have enough emotional attachment to become a cultist. I don't believe they're money laundering scumbags, deliberately lying with full knowledge of imminent collapse, nor do I think CR is the saviour of PC gaming and Star Citizen is undoubtedly going to be the greatest game of all time. I think there's a chance it'll be great and there's a chance it will never get released or be a disgraceful mess if it does.

Right now, considering funding is continuing at a decent pace, my belief they don't have current financial issues and that 3.0 dropping, in even a mildly impressive way, will see them spike up again, I'm coming down on the side of it ending up being a good gaming experience.

I'm not in a cult.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 26, 2017, 03:10:06 PM
There is absolute no proof that funding is still at a steady pace. The only way to say that is when you believe their statscounter on their website. A counter that could be (well, be honest, most definitely is) fake. There is no way they actually still are getting these kinds of funding every day. Impossible.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 26, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
There is absolute no proof that funding is still at a steady pace. The only way to say that is when you believe their statscounter on their website. A counter that could be (well, be honest, most definitely is) fake. There is no way they actually still are getting these kinds of funding every day. Impossible.

Is there any proof that it's fake? Not analysis, analytics or guesswork, proof? Are they still paying wages and hiring? Yes. Are they still developing? Yup. Will they have more sales and generate more funding? Yessiree. Have there been propositions of financial collapse for years? Uh huh. Have they collapsed? Well nossir.

Do you believe Derek's sources that tell him they've taken in over 220 million in total? If you do, have they still got no money left?

For me, the chances of imminent financial collapse are small. You've drawn a different conclusion. Guess what. We'll have to wait and see won't we.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 26, 2017, 03:52:36 PM
Why would I joke? Maybe I'm just different to you.

You demonstrate an enormous amount of faith in CIG’s ability to deliver the game. No matter which event or possible outcome is being discussed, you appear to be giving CIG the benefit of the doubt. There seems to be virtually nothing which makes you doubt that CIG has good intentions and the best interests of their backers at heart. You consistently seem to consider statements, promises and reasoning from CIG management to be unquestionable and beyond doubt.

I find this level of faith in a third party to which you have nothing more than a customer relation astounding. Normally, I’d expect such faith and devotion only from true religious believers and members of a church. But CIG and its promised game are not supposed to be a religion or a cult! Oh, wait…

I believe they'll deliver a game that I'll enjoy playing at some point in time. Probably two, but I don't have enough emotional attachment to become a cultist. I don't believe they're money laundering scumbags, deliberately lying with full knowledge of imminent collapse, nor do I think CR is the saviour of PC gaming and Star Citizen is undoubtedly going to be the greatest game of all time. I think there's a chance it'll be great and there's a chance it will never get released or be a disgraceful mess if it does.

Right now, considering funding is continuing at a decent pace, my belief they don't have current financial issues and that 3.0 dropping, in even a mildly impressive way, will see them spike up again, I'm coming down on the side of it ending up being a good gaming experience.

I'm not in a cult.

Do you know any of the history of MMORPGs ?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: concern on July 26, 2017, 04:57:38 PM
The hilarious elephant in the room here, is that CIG can make all the rumors and speculation disappear in an instant. They can pull the rug out from under Derek's feet and re-open the levels of funding that they previously enjoyed. It's really simple and it's all in their hands.

All they have to do is to disclose the reality of their situation: finances, development progress, road-map. Total transparency and it all disappears. Derek doesn't get to publish and they get the pleasure of rubbing his nose in it.

Why, I wonder, would they not do this? So simple.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: nightfire on July 26, 2017, 09:39:09 PM
All they have to do is to disclose the reality of their situation: finances, development progress, road-map. Total transparency and it all disappears. Derek doesn't get to publish and they get the pleasure of rubbing his nose in it.

The problem with this approach is:

CIG’s claims of „reality of their situation" ≠ „reality“

(see: „promised scope vs. planned scope“, „published schedule vs. current delays“, „previous roadmaps“ vs. „revised roadmaps“ etc.)

The only way to make all controversy disappear in an instant is:

Actual delivery of the game(s) as promised.

And as Derek constantly mentions, 5 years and $155m later, with the game still in pre-alpha and 15% of the promised scope implemented, you’ve got to be asking questions whether many of us will still be alive to see this happen. That’s the actual issue about this game and its development.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 03:30:12 AM
Quote
Do you know any of the history of MMORPGs ?

Not really. I'm not a big gamer and I've never played an MMO before. Is Star Citizen going to be a role playing game? That implies levelling up and what not doesn't it? Not sure it applies and not sure of the relevance of other projects. If there's one thing we can all agree on it's that SC is it's own beast. It's development, scope and intense scrutiny is unlike anything that has come before, especially for an indie dev team, (as in no publisher).

In what way do you think the history of other MMOs applies to SC?

The hilarious elephant in the room here, is that CIG can make all the rumors and speculation disappear in an instant. They can pull the rug out from under Derek's feet and re-open the levels of funding that they previously enjoyed. It's really simple and it's all in their hands.

All they have to do is to disclose the reality of their situation: finances, development progress, road-map. Total transparency and it all disappears. Derek doesn't get to publish and they get the pleasure of rubbing his nose in it.

Why, I wonder, would they not do this? So simple.

Private companies don't disclose their financials in the main. The reason is so suppliers and/or competitors can't use the information against them. Hiking prices if they're flush with cash, for example.

They're being reasonably open with the dev schedule for 3.0, the report is available on the website with it's 'aggressive targets' and numerous caveats. I've heard there will be one for Squadron 42 at some point as well. They also produce multiple development videos and posts each and every week! What more can they do?

Have a watch of AtV tonight for details on development. Read the schedule or monthly reports. Ask the devs on the forums, twitter or reddit.

Of course we can't see absolutely everything, that would be daft with those around who like nothing more than to take a dump on the project but they show us a hell of a lot. More than anyone else that I know of. Much, much more.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 04:25:55 AM
That may be true for the US, but overhere corporate companies are required to publish their P&L statement every year. Failing to do so is an economical crime with severe penalties. A regular criminal is treated better.

And what more could they do? Well for a start, they could communicate honestly. You can't keep delaying every item on your to-do list but still maintain the same old enddate end of August. If I have 9 women I still can't deliver a baby next month.

They are waiting for Games Com end of August and until then they are feeding the hype and promising all kinds of stuff to keep everybody hyped and picking up their wallets. And shortly after Games Com, then everything falls apart, no updates, missed deadlines etc. But not too much because in October they have to pull the same stunt again for ShitizenCon. The period between Games Com and ShitizenCon will be crucial for CIG.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 04:40:16 AM
That may be true for the US, but overhere corporate companies are required to publish their P&L statement every year.

It's true for the EU, UK and US. CIG operates in these three areas only. None of which require private companies to publish accounts. Only those that trade on a stock exchange are required to do so.

And what more could they do? Well for a start, they could communicate honestly. You can't keep delaying every item on your to-do list but still maintain the same old enddate end of August. If I have 9 women I still can't deliver a baby next month.

They are waiting for Games Com end of August and until then they are feeding the hype and promising all kinds of stuff to keep everybody hyped and picking up their wallets. And shortly after Games Com, they everything falls apart, no updates, missed deadlines etc. But not too much because in October they have to pull the same stunt again for ShitizenCon. The period between Games Com and ShitizenCon will be crucial for CIG.

If you look at the schedule report, it clearly says the dates are intentionally aggressive and that its all liable to change. I believe they're being honest. Overly optimistic and aggressive to encourage speed but honest when you take into account the caveats they quite clearly have added. A date on the schedule report isn't a promise or set in stone. Why can't you, honestly, appreciate this simple fact. Its an aggressive schedule with caveats. To me, it's you not being honest by suggesting any date on there is a promise of delivery. Please read the caveat section. Thanks.

Of course an item can be delayed and it not change the possible release date. If something else was taking longer than it in the first place. Something originally scheduled for 10th august which is put back to the 24th won't effect the release if there was already something not being completed until the 24th already. It's pretty simple to be honest...

Showing what they've been working isn't a 'stunt', it's called marketing. They're producing a game and showing what they've got. Time frames don't bother me. Waiting I can do. I'm in no rush. What's the point in demanding something mediocre now when I can wait for something that might be awesome in time? I'd rather wait thank you.

Do you really need to use profanity? It sure as hell confirms your confirmation bias. Confirmception!
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 04:58:51 AM
No, you are wrong here. For instance, in The Netherlands all corparate companies (Ltd, PLC or as they are called BV or NV) have to file their annual financial report with the Chamber of Commerce. If they're on the stock market doesn't matter. And those annual reports can be retrieved by everybody. It is my understanding that this applies to most Western countries, so that's why we now (finally) have the figures from the UK. Germany probably has the same rules.

Only the big ones on the stockmarket with shareholders will do a pressconference etc. but all corporate companies need to file their financial statements. Pressconferences are required as well if you have information that could have a major impact on your stockprice (like expected big losses, take-over bids etc.).

If CIG was an European company, all their financial and business details (within the legally required specifications of course) would have been available from the start (after the first year of course). And it probably wouldn't have gotten out of hand as it has now.

And do you remember 3.0? Coming to you in all theaters December 19th. Of 2016! Agressive schedule with caveats my ass.

Oh, where did I use profanity? Apart from my behind just above.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
No, you are wrong here. For instance, n The Netherlands all corparate companies (Ltd, PLC or as they are called BV or NV) have to file their annual financial report with the Chamber of Commerce. If they're on the stock market doesn't matter. And those annual reports can be retrieved by everybody. It is my understanding that this applies to most Western countries, so that's why we now (finally) have the figures from the UK. Germany probably has the same rules.

Only the big ones on the stockmarket with shareholders will do a pressconference etc. but all corporate companies need to file their financial statements. Pressconferences are required as well if you have information that could have a major impact on your stockprice (like expected big losses, take-over bids etc.).

If CIG was an European company, all their financial and business details (within the legally required specifications of course) would have been available from the start (after the first year of course). And it porbably wouldn't have gotten out of hand as it has now.

And do you remember 3.0? Coming to you in all theaters december 19th. Of 2016!

Oh, where did I use profanity?

Private companies and partnerships that do not trade on a stock exchange do not need to file financials. Ltd companies and PLC both trade shares on a stock exchange so do have to publish financial information. CIG does have European offices, UK x2 and Germany. They don't publish financial information because they don't have to as they don't trade on a stock exchange.

Annual accounts
Keeping annual accounts is not only a legal obligation, it enables you to monitor the health of your business by keeping track of receipts and expenses. Companies with limited liability doing business in the EU, whatever the size, have to prepare a set of financial statements and file it with the relevant national business register.

If you are self-employed or if your business is incorporated in a type with unlimited liability, your business is not regulated by EU rules: you should check the rules which have been decided by each Member State.


http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/start-grow/annual-accounts/index_en.htm

limited liability
nounBRITISH
the condition by which shareholders are legally responsible for the debts of a company only to the extent of the nominal value of their shares.

No shares being traded, unlimited liability, no financial information required.

To further clarify, the only reason traded companies need to publish financials is so people can decide if they want to buy or sell shares. How can investors know what to invest in if that information isn't available?

I remember Chris hoped to get 3.0 to us by the end of last year. He never promised, in fact he explicitly said, no promises. Game dev is hard. Chris is bad at timescales. Meh.

Is the word 'Shit' not a profanity? It appears you now use the 'word' 'Shitizen' without even noticing, further displaying your confirmation bias and skewed point of view.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 05:38:13 AM
The rules you mention do not apply for The Netherlands. Probably why don't have an office there.

And if you think Shitizens is a profanity because you consider shit a profanity, then we have different perceptions of profanity.

Profanity is socially offensive language,[1] which may also be called bad language, strong language, offensive language, coarse language, foul language, bad words, vulgar language, lewd language, choice words or expletives. The use of such language is called swearing, cursing or cussing.

I don't consider the (use of the) word shit a profanity.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 05:46:45 AM
I'm reasonably sure the Netherlands is a part of the EU. The rules I mentioned are for EU members. Please accept you are wrong, because you are. Who knows if maybe you might be wrong about the future of SC too.  :smugdog:

The word 'shit' is most definitely a swear word. The Oxford dictionary has it listed as 'vulgar slang'. A swear word.

shit
NOUN

mass noun
vulgar slang

The Dutch version, 'stront', can be used neutrally. Thanks Wikipedia!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_profanity
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 06:34:17 AM
Oh, please don't tell me how things work in the country I was born and raised. That there are EU rules doesn't mean that that can't be additional rules for a individual country.

Here, The Dutch Chamber of Commerce (https://www.kvk.nl/inschrijven-en-wijzigen/deponeren/jaarrekening-deponeren/) regarding the annual financial statement (jaarrekening). I'll give the Google translation without edititing so you can see I didn't alter.

Deposit account
Depositing is legally required for many companies. This will make your company's financial information available to anyone interested in it. Businesses in business class micro and small can only deposit digitally.

Is my company obliged to deposit?
Bv's, NV's, cooperatives and mutual insurance companies are examples of legal forms that are obliged to deposit the financial statements. For sole proprietors, this obligation is not applicable.

How do I see if my annual accounts have been deposited?
Use your company or company name to verify that the annual accounts have been deposited. If your financial year is stated in the results, you will know that your financial statements have been processed. If you have registered online, your annual accounts will be immediately visible. For deposits by mail or email, please take into account a processing time of 5-10 business days. Unrecorded annual accounts are not published.

B.V. stands for Besloten Vennootschap that translates as Ltd.; private company; private limited company
N.V. stands for Naamloze Vennootschap that translates as PLC; public limited liability company
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 06:40:02 AM
Oh dear, "For sole proprietors, this obligation is not applicable."

If it's unlimited liability then it's not applicable.

Anyway, it matters not. If they had to publish then they would, they haven't, ergo, they don't. What happens in other places around the world isn't important or relevant.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 06:47:23 AM
For sole proprietors, this obligation is not applicable means that you are a one-man company (like a freelancer, or modernly know as ZZP (Zelfstandig Zonder Personeel) meaning single without staff employed).

Sole proprietors has nothing to do with stock beeing traded. I can have a BV and be the single shareholder not on the stock market and I still have to deposit my "jaarrekening" simply because I have a BV. It's the BV that has the obligation btw, not the owner.

Are you really that dumb that you now are arguing about something I do know because of study and businesswise? Are you Dutch?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 07:22:02 AM
Why don't we just stop, it's not important or relevant to the discussion. CIG don't have to file public financials.

Quote
For sole proprietors, this obligation is not applicable means that you are a one-man company (like a freelancer, or modernly know as ZZP (Zelfstandig Zonder Personeel) meaning single without staff employed).

Sole proprietor has nothing to do with how many people you employ at all though, please don't try to sound like you know when you don't. Sole proprietor means a person who is the exclusive owner of a business, entitled to keep all profits after tax has been paid but liable for all losses. Not at all to do with number of employees. And you ask if I'm dumb...ha ha.

I'd recommend using this thing they call 'google' to check before you post total codswallop again. You do know because of study and businesswise, hahahaha. Fail of the day award goes to...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 07:32:38 AM
Back on topic, Sandi posted an interesting GIF on her twitter with a multiplayer performance test. Low gravity jumping and all.

Looks nice. I'd imagine that's over LAN however.

https://twitter.com/sandigardiner/status/890297562678382592

10 people spotted. Still a long way to go before the first 'M' of MMO becomes a reality...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 08:03:04 AM
Just for the record, I can have a B.V. and be the sole proprietor (meaning, I own all the companies shares and all those shares are not on the stockmarket) and then I still have to deliver my annual financial statement. No, this has nothing to do with this CIG, but don't blame me for telling lies when you're simply dead wrong.

But I give up. There is just no reasoning with you.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 08:44:24 AM
Just for the record, I can have a B.V. and be the sole proprietor (meaning, I own all the companies shares and all those shares are not on the stockmarket) and then I still have to deliver my annual financial statement. No, this has nothing to do with this CIG, but don't blame me for telling lies when you're simply dead wrong.

But I give up. There is just no reasoning with you.

There's plenty of reasoning to be had with me but you kind of ruined your credibility by trying to tell me a sole proprietor doesn't have employees. I've been reading this document (https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/audit/deloitte-nl-annual-accounts-2013.pdf) to try and understand. Not entirely sure but I think I'm still right. Anywhoo, it matters not. We should drop it like it's hot.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 27, 2017, 08:53:40 AM
The only ones who do not have to deliver their annual financial reports are the sole proprietors, as in sole proprietors that you are a one-man company (like a freelancer, or modernly known as ZZP (Zelfstandig Zonder Personeel) meaning single without staff employed). Maybe I wasn't clear enough that I meant that.

As said, I can have a B.V. and be the sole proprietor (meaning, I own all the companies shares regardless if they are on the stockmarket or not) and then I (the company) still have to deliver my annual financial statement.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 27, 2017, 08:59:32 AM
Back on topic, Sandi posted an interesting GIF on her twitter with a multiplayer performance test. Low gravity jumping and all.

Looks nice. I'd imagine that's over LAN however.

https://twitter.com/sandigardiner/status/890297562678382592

10 people spotted. Still a long way to go before the first 'M' of MMO becomes a reality...

Yeah it's nice they're still reading my Tweets and posts when I make of fun of their 8 client MMO.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 27, 2017, 12:28:16 PM
 Its really funny to listen about their  "MMO" dream net-code

 
 In one video we can hear about thousands player dream and 64 player limit at same time..

 So in best scenario they can have similar "MMO" game as Elite, you can actually see max 64 players, but other "ghosts" will influence economy and other stuff in the background...   
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 27, 2017, 02:05:10 PM
They have recently mentioned that what they're doing with the server meshes and what not has never been done before. Where it ends up will be interesting. Obviously not in game now but here's to hoping a decent amount of players can interact in time.

They've managed new things with Cryengine already so with the help of Amazon's technology who knows what will happen. I don't think Erin's hundreds of thousands of players will ever materialise but I don't think he'd say that if he didn't believe it. Maybe he meant hundreds or thousands. Maybe the new technology will break new ground. Here's to hoping.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 27, 2017, 05:25:44 PM
They have recently mentioned that what they're doing with the server meshes and what not has never been done before. Where it ends up will be interesting. Obviously not in game now but here's to hoping a decent amount of players can interact in time.

They've managed new things with Cryengine already so with the help of Amazon's technology who knows what will happen. I don't think Erin's hundreds of thousands of players will ever materialise but I don't think he'd say that if he didn't believe it. Maybe he meant hundreds or thousands. Maybe the new technology will break new ground. Here's to hoping.

"already ?"

lol.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 28, 2017, 12:47:11 AM
Back on topic, Sandi posted an interesting GIF on her twitter with a multiplayer performance test. Low gravity jumping and all.

Looks nice. I'd imagine that's over LAN however.

https://twitter.com/sandigardiner/status/890297562678382592

10 people spotted. Still a long way to go before the first 'M' of MMO becomes a reality...

Yeah it's nice they're still reading my Tweets and posts when I make of fun of their 8 client MMO.

Hey, congratulations on maintaining at least some kind of relevance to the video game industry I guess.  :shrug:

They have recently mentioned that what they're doing with the server meshes and what not has never been done before. Where it ends up will be interesting. Obviously not in game now but here's to hoping a decent amount of players can interact in time.

They've managed new things with Cryengine already so with the help of Amazon's technology who knows what will happen. I don't think Erin's hundreds of thousands of players will ever materialise but I don't think he'd say that if he didn't believe it. Maybe he meant hundreds or thousands. Maybe the new technology will break new ground. Here's to hoping.

"already ?"

lol.

Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: helimoth on July 28, 2017, 05:41:01 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

That's an interesting angle, to talk about things CIG have done. I reckon it would be a short-lived discussion though. Thing is this; I could open a pizzeria and create the biggest sausage and cheese pizza - bigger than anyone else. If it was half-baked, tasted terrible and cost far than most other pizzas, would anyone really care?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 28, 2017, 07:04:10 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

That's an interesting angle, to talk about things CIG have done. I reckon it would be a short-lived discussion though. Thing is this; I could open a pizzeria and create the biggest sausage and cheese pizza - bigger than anyone else. If it was half-baked, tasted terrible and cost far than most other pizzas, would anyone really care?

If you were given over 155 million dollars in pre orders for your pizza then I'd say yeah, plenty of people care.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 28, 2017, 07:18:04 AM
And would they reply with "Oh, nice try, sorry it went wrong but nobody has ever tried it before so here you have another 155 mil. to try again" or rather "How stupid are you that you can't make one decent pizza after all those years and 155 mil. in funding?"

Never mind, I know your answer.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 28, 2017, 07:53:02 AM
I'm not as sure as you that it has gone wrong. They haven't finished making the pizza yet. It's still having its dough stretched and toppings decided. The tomato sauce is good.

Silly analogies are silly though, it's not a pizza that they're making. Pizza is easy. Game dev is hard. Doing things never done before in gaming is harder again. I'm a patient person and don't mind waiting.

Edit: Don't forget they're making two pizzas as well.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: kathiley on July 28, 2017, 01:48:36 PM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 28, 2017, 04:40:32 PM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.

If you'd found one hundreds of km across then maybe, but come on. 20 ish does not come close to millions. Behave.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 28, 2017, 07:45:27 PM
Yay! July 28th schedule is out!!  :supaburn:

Yeah, that slip is incorrect. Sources tell me that no way on this God's Earth is Sept even a realistic time frame. But you already knew this, because I TOTALLY CALLED IT three weeks ago. They're now doing the delays a little bit at a time to avoid panic. Good plan if you ask me.

Analysis, courtesy of Nicholas over on SA (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800238&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1617#post474832618)

Diff: http://www.mergely.com/vMlIAFNy/?wl=1/
Schedule Report: https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

Factual but not Truthful:

Quote
Completed: 3
Delayed: 7
Remaining: 14 (was 17)
Needs bug-fixing: 14 (was 14)
Total In-progress: 28 (was 30)
Furthest ETA: TBD or Aug 16th (was Aug 10th)

Excuses:

Quote
The following lists and charts show our progress towards releasing 3.0.0, with all remaining major tasks listed.

Tasks are either feature complete, or have an ETA for completion.

Some tasks may require further QA, bug-fixing and iteration.

Tasks that delay beyond our target dates might cause the release of 3.0.0 to be delayed, or might be excluded from 3.0.0 if appropriate to maintain the release date target. 3.0.0 work is separated into Subsections: Persistent Universe Content, FPS / Space Gameplay, Engineering, UI, AI, Graphics, Backend, Network, and Ships & Weapons.The 3.0.0 Procedural Planet update marks a major advance in the Star Citizen Persistent Universe.

This week, we entered the optimization, polish and bug fixing phase for the 3.0 feature set. As there have been so many features and content implemented, we’ve encountered some stability issues that we want to address before going to a wider test audience. The ongoing work on the new Patcher system (that will save you from having to completely re-download each build) and some new bugs with CopyBuild3 (our internal version of the patcher) have also slowed us down. Because of this we have pushed back the Evocati and subsequent date ranges to reflect the additional time needed to get Star Citizen Alpha 3.0 ready for prime time.

Completed:

Quote
- DELAMAR / LEVSKI - Shop kiosk implementation – Code complete

- ENTITY UPDATE COMPONENT SCHEDULER - Planned work for 3.0.0 is complete. This feature will extend past 3.0.0 as the work is ongoing, and continual improvements will be made in the run up to 3.0.0 release.

- CARGO MANIFEST APP - Bug fixing to follow.

Delayed:

Quote
- MISSION GIVERS - ETA is 11th August (was 28th July)
Reason: some code dependencies are still present and animation rework is still in progress

- ENTITY OWNER MANAGER - ETA is 11th August (was 28th July)
Reason: LA Engineering has identified further tasks needed to support persistence and netcode.

- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION - ETA is TBD (was 25th July)
Reason: Players will now be able to customize their characters’ heads, hair, eye color, and skin color. The team has been supporting other features, so the date for this has slipped. Production is reassessing and will post a specific projection next week.

- VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP - ETA is 9th August (was 27th July)
Reason: Additional code support to fix issues with the Mission Manager, Hints, and the Ship Selector have delayed this feature slightly.

- COMMS SYSTEM UI - ETA is 16th August (was 25th July)
Reason: Delayed due to team being redirected to help resolve blockers on other issues.

- MISSION SYSTEM - ETA is 9th August (was 24th July)

- GEMINI L86 PISTOL - ETA is 2nd August (was 28th July)
Reason: The latest review of this weapon highlighted issues that need to be fixed before it is signed off as complete.

Remaining Open:

Quote
- MISSION GIVERS
- INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
- ENTITY OWNER MANAGER
- CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION
- VEHICLE CUSTOMIZER APP
- SHIP SELECTOR APP & INSURANCE CLAIM
- INVENTORY SYSTEM
- COMMS SYSTEM UI
- MISSION SYSTEM
- RENDER TO TEXTURE
- VOLUMETRIC FOG (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- APOCALYPSE ARMS SCOURGE RAIL GUN (still scheduled to be completed on June 9th)
- RSI AURORA
- GEMINI L86 PISTOL

Needs bug fixing:

Quote
- Item 2.0 Ship Conversion – Part 2
- Insurance
- Doors and Airlocks
- Cargo
- Cargo Manifest App
- Kiosk Support
- Repair
- Hint System
- Personal Manager App
- Mission Manager App
- Physics Serialization
- Drake Dragonfly
- RSI Constellation Aquilla
- Misc Prospector

Meanwhile over there... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6q9wgo/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170728/)

Quote
The schedule's analysis is becoming harder and harder to do each week. As you probably know, the schedule only contains "features" tasks, leaving out everything around like bugfixing, release preparation, and general polishing. As tasks get completed and CIG moves to the final phases of preparation for the release, we have less and less information on what's going on, and what's causing delays.

We'll start this week with the Mission Givers, which are under an animation rework. Also, some code dependencies are missing. All that pushes them by 2 weeks.

Next is the inventory system gamecode engineering. The schedule hasn't been updated on that, so we don't know if it's completed or not.

The Entity Owner Manager, which we've learned a bit in this week's ATV (check out the persistence segment), is also being delayed by 2 weeks.

Next is UI. We start with inventory, which as for the gamecode part hasn't been updated. The Character Customisation has been update though, but all CIG says is that they don't have an ETA anymore as developers are supporting other tasks. We then have the Vehicle Customiser App, which is delayed by 2 weeks, and the Comms System UI, which is delayed by 3 weeks. Both delays are due to developers supporting other tasks.

In the AI department, the Mission System is still under work, with an additionnal 2 weeks required.

Finally, the L86 Pistol Rework is delayed by 5 days, as the quality review discovered some elements that needed improvements.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: EmmettLazlo on July 29, 2017, 01:19:51 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.

If you'd found one hundreds of km across then maybe, but come on. 20 ish does not come close to millions. Behave.

Registered just to say perhaps a touchè wouldn't have gone amiss in your reply. Kathileys answer met your challenge beautifully.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 29, 2017, 03:08:14 AM
CIG is right on schedule with 3.0 for not making Shitizencon too  :D

They mastered "Ponzi Scheme" but clearly need summerschool for "Scheduling and Planning for Game Development".

So, nothing to show for at Games Com for the 3.0 release. How are they gonna explain that? Or just swipe it under the rug with a new demo clip?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: kathiley on July 29, 2017, 04:12:35 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.

If you'd found one hundreds of km across then maybe, but come on. 20 ish does not come close to millions. Behave.

I just wanted to see this kind of response. That's all i wanted. Thank you  :smuggo:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 29, 2017, 04:16:07 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.

If you'd found one hundreds of km across then maybe, but come on. 20 ish does not come close to millions. Behave.

Registered just to say perhaps a touchè wouldn't have gone amiss in your reply. Kathileys answer met your challenge beautifully.

Ai, true enough. My bad for not researching before challenging. My point remains valid though. A cryengine map millions of km access is still new.

CIG is right on schedule with 3.0 for not making Shitizencon too  :D

They mastered "Ponzi Scheme" but clearly need summerschool for "Scheduling and Planning for Game Development".

So, nothing to show for at Games Com for the 3.0 release. How are they gonna explain that? Or just swipe it under the rug with a new demo clip?

There will be plenty of new stuff to show off, including perhaps a Squadron demo missing from last year.

In what way does Ponzi apply? Which new investors are having their money given to which old investors?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 29, 2017, 04:17:32 AM
Creating a cryengine map more than a few km in size is new. CIG have done that with 2.0. If there is any other cryengine game that has maps over 20km in size please let me know and I'll edit my post and thought process, cheers.

Archeage. Open world MMO, released in 2013 with CryEngine 3.

If you'd found one hundreds of km across then maybe, but come on. 20 ish does not come close to millions. Behave.

I just wanted to see this kind of response. That's all i wanted. Thank you  :smuggo:

You're welcome. I stand by millions of km being new.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: kathiley on July 29, 2017, 04:23:43 AM

You're welcome. I stand by millions of km being new.

Nobody said anything else (at least for CryEngine).
But you show perfectly, that you are not able to discuss in a neutral way.

You ask a specific question. You get a valid neutral answer. And your only reaction is: Deny the answer.
Think about it.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 29, 2017, 04:57:22 AM
The number I picked wasn't quite big enough, that's all. The point remains. If I'd have asked for a 50km map we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion.

I was wrong, (assuming that map has no loading between zones), and I got my information from the Cryengine forums where a dev answered a question with the answer of a single map being a maximum of 13km if memory serves. That might have been specific to a different version perhaps, I don't know.

Anyway, my challenge was answered but my point remains. 64 bit positioning and millions of km is new in cryengine.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 29, 2017, 05:39:47 AM
CIG is right on schedule with 3.0 for not making Shitizencon too  :D

They mastered "Ponzi Scheme" but clearly need summerschool for "Scheduling and Planning for Game Development".

So, nothing to show for at Games Com for the 3.0 release. How are they gonna explain that? Or just swipe it under the rug with a new demo clip?

Oh just wait. Sources have told me EXACTLY what they're going to be doing. On Aug 22nd, I am going to be releasing a "scoop (http://dereksmart.com/forums/topic/sc-scoop/)" article with the plan. And this time, they won't have time to change it on me.

Last year when I kept saying that GamesCom and CitizenCon were just showcasing R&D demos which no basis on the game client, some people thought I was just saying shit. Even when I said the 3.0 release schedule and Roberts' claims to a Dec 19th release were bullshit, some were skeptical. Well, here we are. 12 MONTHS later.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 29, 2017, 05:51:05 AM
I think that's because Chris keeps on refactoring his schedules by adding fidelity to it.

But I figured it out:

build bugfix - deliver bugfix - test bugfix - find other bugs - replan the schedule to fix bugs - build bugfix - deliver bugfix - test bugfix - find other bugs - replan the schedule to fix bugs - build bugfix - deliver bugfix - test bugfix - find other bugs - replan the schedule to fix bugs - build bugfix - deliver bugfix - test bugfix - find other bugs - replan the schedule to fix bugs - build bugfix - deliver bugfix - test bugfix - find other bugs - replan the schedule to fix bugs etc. etc. etc.

The only thing not sequential in this is the "ask for more money routine". They have too much options for that to fit it in, so they keep that one running seperately on a single permanent schedule.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 29, 2017, 05:54:39 AM
Everyone stand back, I GOT THIS!!  :supaburn:

Ai, true enough. My bad for not researching before challenging. My point remains valid though. A cryengine map millions of km access is still new.

The "map" isn't "millions of km" across. It's not a "contiguous" piece. I've written about that before (http://www.dereksmart.org/forums/topic/star-citizen-year-four/#post-1812), back in Nov 2015. You should maybe read it in order to get a clear idea of how tech actually works. What makes you think that - ANY - game engine editor could load a world map that is "millions" of km across? And what evidence have you seen anywhere, let alone from CIG, to suggest that?

There will be plenty of new stuff to show off, including perhaps a Squadron demo missing from last year.

And you know this how exactly?

My sources have said that they may release a video or short scripted play through of a SQ42 segment, a game that's already +3 years late and has no internal release date.

In what way does Ponzi apply? Which new investors are having their money given to which old investors?

Oh, you think Ponzi only implies investors? Dude, no.

Raising money from new backers, in order to pay off refunding backers, is the very concept of a Ponzi scheme. That's how that actually works. And like an investment Ponzi scheme, once they can no longer refund backers, the whole thing falls apart.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 29, 2017, 05:58:04 AM
Meanwhile over there... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6q9wgo/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170728/)

Quote
The schedule's analysis is becoming harder and harder to do each week. As you probably know, the schedule only contains "features" tasks, leaving out everything around like bugfixing, release preparation, and general polishing. As tasks get completed and CIG moves to the final phases of preparation for the release, we have less and less information on what's going on, and what's causing delays.

We'll start this week with the Mission Givers, which are under an animation rework. Also, some code dependencies are missing. All that pushes them by 2 weeks.

Next is the inventory system gamecode engineering. The schedule hasn't been updated on that, so we don't know if it's completed or not.

The Entity Owner Manager, which we've learned a bit in this week's ATV (check out the persistence segment), is also being delayed by 2 weeks.

Next is UI. We start with inventory, which as for the gamecode part hasn't been updated. The Character Customisation has been update though, but all CIG says is that they don't have an ETA anymore as developers are supporting other tasks. We then have the Vehicle Customiser App, which is delayed by 2 weeks, and the Comms System UI, which is delayed by 3 weeks. Both delays are due to developers supporting other tasks.

In the AI department, the Mission System is still under work, with an additionnal 2 weeks required.

Finally, the L86 Pistol Rework is delayed by 5 days, as the quality review discovered some elements that needed improvements.

It's almost as if... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6q9wgo/300_and_global_progress_watch_update_20170728/dkvp7q7/)

Quote
There seems to be an interesting pattern:

- Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
- Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

This can go on a very long time and keep backers happy, as we have now seen with already more than doubled time from 3.0 June prediction.

But people are starting to notice.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 29, 2017, 07:31:47 AM
Here's a link to a video showing a time lapse of an approach to Port Olisar from 26,000km. There is no breaks in game play. https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/citizen-spotlight/5681-Time-Lapse-26-000-Km-Cruise-To-Port-Olisar


7 hours of cruising without any breaks in gameplay. It's not millions but it's 3 orders of magnitude over 20 which fits the 64 bit positional change. There's no reason it couldn't be done across the whole map. There is no selected end point. There is no break or seam. I've done it myself to a lesser extent access significantly large volumes of space. The entities aren't loaded all together but millions of miles of empty space exist as a single, traversable map. It's a fact. Go load up the game and try it for yourself. Why you try to argue something that is available in game hasn't been done, is beyond me. It's there. Go try it for yourself.

Here's a video showing them building a star system or two as a single map which is millions of km across.


I don't 'know' they have something to show but it's a fair assumption. I've heard rumours of a Squadron demo being shown. It seems you agree, as do your sources. Strange thing to question me about when you already know the same. Lateness doesn't bother me. Think I've mentioned that already.

Just how many refunds do you think they're giving out? They made well over a million dollars in the last three weeks. I think just that alone should cover every single refund ever given a few times over. To suggest they need to hand over the most recent purchases to refunds is laughable.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 29, 2017, 09:00:59 AM
7 hours of cruising without any breaks in gameplay. It's not millions but it's 3 orders of magnitude over 20 which fits the 64 bit positional change. There's no reason it couldn't be done across the whole map. There is no selected end point. There is no break or seam. I've done it myself to a lesser extent access significantly large volumes of space. The entities aren't loaded all together but millions of miles of empty space exist as a single, traversable map. It's a fact. Go load up the game and try it for yourself. Why you try to argue something that is available in game hasn't been done, is beyond me. It's there. Go try it for yourself.

Oh you're so cute. Again, please go and learn how scenes are generated, loaded, and updated. Then come back and lets have a chat.

ps: Your videos are not proof of any claim you've made. Instead, you're engaging in the usual deflection. We talk about one thing, you bring up something else, while ignoring the original thing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: BigM on July 29, 2017, 10:05:02 AM
Here we are talking maps this, maps that. The only thing we should be talking about in our reality is the beta release of this on going alpha that doesn't even actually play like an alpha. At least none as a gamer I have seen, from all the way back with Ultima Online. It amazes me that only a few actually see how this is nothing more than Chris Roberts once again has no clue how to build, test, create, any actual game. Also, the little respect his brother Erin has had is clearly now just a failing memory to a lot of people.

The only concept after all these years we should be agreeing on is the only true statement about this game, Derek was Right! Yet it now should be Derek IS Right!

Chris Roberts the destroyer of developers/Kickstarters/crowd funding!

Really how delusional do you have to be to actually not see the truth?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: N0mad on July 29, 2017, 10:19:15 AM
I've been following this thread for a while and thought I might chip in.

The point about the Map size is that CIG aren't doing anything with CryEngine which isn't already commonplace in many other game engines.

The makers of Kerbal Space Program did a good talk about how they've achieved huge maps in Unity: Skip to 4:20
 

Hope this helps !
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 29, 2017, 10:20:25 AM
I've been following this thread for a while and thought I might chip in.

The point about the Map size is that CIG aren't doing anything with CryEngine which isn't already commonplace in many other game engines.

The makers of Kerbal Space Program did a good talk about how they've achieved huge maps in Unity: Skip to 4:20
 

Hope this helps !

Trust me, those of us who have actually developed this stuff, have written about it numerous times.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 29, 2017, 10:23:42 AM
Clearly they didn't know anything about game development.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: BigM on July 29, 2017, 12:19:33 PM
Clearly they didn't know anything about game development.

They have been really really good at scamming.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 29, 2017, 12:59:13 PM
You're referring to the wrong "they" now   ;)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 29, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
7 hours of cruising without any breaks in gameplay. It's not millions but it's 3 orders of magnitude over 20 which fits the 64 bit positional change. There's no reason it couldn't be done across the whole map. There is no selected end point. There is no break or seam. I've done it myself to a lesser extent access significantly large volumes of space. The entities aren't loaded all together but millions of miles of empty space exist as a single, traversable map. It's a fact. Go load up the game and try it for yourself. Why you try to argue something that is available in game hasn't been done, is beyond me. It's there. Go try it for yourself.

Oh you're so cute. Again, please go and learn how scenes are generated, loaded, and updated. Then come back and lets have a chat.

ps: Your videos are not proof of any claim you've made. Instead, you're engaging in the usual deflection. We talk about one thing, you bring up something else, while ignoring the original thing.

I'm not trying to deflect anything. I'm trying to understand. How about this video where you can see Yela from around 3 minutes as a couple of pixels and it slowly getting bigger as the player gets closer? Can you explain how this doesn't show a single map being traversed without any loading or cut scenes or anything other than an obviously mind bogglingly huge, single map that is being travelled through in real time?

Your explanation does not fit this video. It just doesn't. You can see the distant object start off as a couple of pixels that slowly becomes bigger as they get closer. How you explain it just doesn't fit this evidence, which is easily repeatable for anyone who has played the game. There's no zones or loading or anything. Just a ship moving through tens of thousands of kilometres of 64 bit positional space.

Also, stop flirting with me you tease, I'm not cute. 😝
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: StanTheMan on July 29, 2017, 06:52:14 PM
The delay in releasing 3.0 until after their two major jpeg selling events will get them more $.

The wait is Tantric for some Shitizens but will it make CIG enough $ to keep going well into 2018 ?
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: N0mad on July 30, 2017, 01:38:30 AM
Quote
There's no zones or loading or anything. Just a ship moving through tens of thousands of kilometres of 64 bit positional space.

You talk about the map size in Star Citizen as though they've managed to do something no one else has ever achieved before. This plainly isn't true, Elite Dangerous (although I haven't played it) manages to pull off huge star systems, SpaceEngine (free download) allows you to visit planets in other Galaxies, and upcoming titles such as Duel Universe are just as ambitious.

Regarding 64 bit positioning. Again this is nothing new, nor is it especially hard to do - just change all the float values to double. Space Engineers have managed to pull it off http://blog.marekrosa.org/2014/12/space-engineers-super-large-worlds_17.html (http://blog.marekrosa.org/2014/12/space-engineers-super-large-worlds_17.html) (note - that was 2014). Although, using 64 bit positioning may explain why the performance is so poor and the physics is a so jittery in Star Citizen (same problems in Space Engineers).

As far as I can tell, Star Citizen isn't doing anything technically different to many other games. There is no new technology, it's just standard industry stuff but they refer to it using different terms to make it sound like something they've invented. eg Subsumption technology for the AI - which as far as I can tell is just a fancy term for a Behaviour Tree - which they still can't seem to make work - by all means correct me if I'm wrong on this.

The only thing Star Citizen does differently to other games is their constant drive for FIDELITY - creating a fluid physics simulation for drinks, creating a whole system to deal with picking up objects, rendering every little bolt and fixture in high detail. The reason why no other game does this is because it's a performance hog and detracts from the actual gameplay. In that regard, Star Citizen seems to be a giant art project rather than a game, but that's just my opinion!

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 30, 2017, 01:58:48 AM
Quote
There's no zones or loading or anything. Just a ship moving through tens of thousands of kilometres of 64 bit positional space.

You talk about the map size in Star Citizen as though they've managed to do something no one else has ever achieved before. This plainly isn't true, Elite Dangerous (although I haven't played it) manages to pull off huge star systems, SpaceEngine (free download) allows you to visit planets in other Galaxies, and upcoming titles such as Duel Universe are just as ambitious.

Regarding 64 bit positioning. Again this is nothing new, nor is it especially hard to do - just change all the float values to double. Space Engineers have managed to pull it off http://blog.marekrosa.org/2014/12/space-engineers-super-large-worlds_17.html (http://blog.marekrosa.org/2014/12/space-engineers-super-large-worlds_17.html) (note - that was 2014). Although, using 64 bit positioning may explain why the performance is so poor and the physics is a so jittery in Star Citizen (same problems in Space Engineers).

As far as I can tell, Star Citizen isn't doing anything technically different to many other games. There is no new technology, it's just standard industry stuff but they refer to it using different terms to make it sound like something they've invented. eg Subsumption technology for the AI - which as far as I can tell is just a fancy term for a Behaviour Tree - which they still can't seem to make work - by all means correct me if I'm wrong on this.

The only thing Star Citizen does differently to other games is their constant drive for FIDELITY - creating a fluid physics simulation for drinks, creating a whole system to deal with picking up objects, rendering every little bolt and fixture in high detail. The reason why no other game does this is because it's a performance hog and detracts from the actual gameplay. In that regard, Star Citizen seems to be a giant art project rather than a game, but that's just my opinion!

As I've mentioned, it's new for cryengine. I know other games have done it but none of them look as nice as cryengine and no other game is doing everything that SC is trying to do, Elite and 'space legs' aside, even then it's not to the same level as SC is attempting with its skill based mini game mining et Al.

The promise of SC is worth waiting for and seeing as I don't believe they're in financial trouble anytime soon I'm happy to wait for this beautiful art project to become a game worth playing.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: N0mad on July 30, 2017, 02:35:25 AM
Quote
The promise of SC is worth waiting for and seeing as I don't believe they're in financial trouble anytime soon I'm happy to wait for this beautiful art project to become a game worth playing.

If they ever deliver it then it will be a very beautiful game to look at, but if it means having space dog fights at 20fps then that won't be fun. Exactly what gameplay are they actually delivering? If you look at their Gameplay production schedule for 3.0 its:

These are mostly just features not actual gameplay mechanics.

So you can haul cargo, dogfight a bit with pirates (but be careful because you won't get your ship back for a while if it's destroyed), do missions (?how many will be in 3.0?), loot some wrecks. Enough to keep you entertained for a few hours at most.

They seem so obsessed with creating a high fidelity universe that they've forgotten it's meant to be a game. It strikes me that they seem to be falling into the same trap as No Man's Sky who spent so much time creating a giant procedural universe that they forgot to add anything interesting to do when you actually played the game.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 30, 2017, 09:17:25 AM
Quote
The promise of SC is worth waiting for and seeing as I don't believe they're in financial trouble anytime soon I'm happy to wait for this beautiful art project to become a game worth playing.

If they ever deliver it then it will be a very beautiful game to look at, but if it means having space dog fights at 20fps then that won't be fun. Exactly what gameplay are they actually delivering? If you look at their Gameplay production schedule for 3.0 its:
  • PLAYER MANNED TURRETS
  • PICK UP & CARRY
  • Ship systems: Radar System, Light Control System, Fuel / Refuel, Power Supply / Pipes, Quantum Drive
  • INSURANCE
  • STAMINA
  • DOORS & AIRLOCKS
  • CARGO
  • COMMODITIES
  • KIOSK SUPPORT
  • ATMOSPHERIC ENTRY SUPPORT
  • PERSISTENT DAMAGE, AMMO AND MISSILES
  • REPAIR
  • INVENTORY SYSTEM SUPPORT
  • ROVER AND DRAGONFLY IN SHIPS
  • HINT SYSTEM
  • Points of Interest
  • new Mission System.
  • Power Plants / Shield Generators / Coolers and the Heat & Power System

These are mostly just features not actual gameplay mechanics.

So you can haul cargo, dogfight a bit with pirates (but be careful because you won't get your ship back for a while if it's destroyed), do missions (?how many will be in 3.0?), loot some wrecks. Enough to keep you entertained for a few hours at most.

They seem so obsessed with creating a high fidelity universe that they've forgotten it's meant to be a game. It strikes me that they seem to be falling into the same trap as No Man's Sky who spent so much time creating a giant procedural universe that they forgot to add anything interesting to do when you actually played the game.

Well yeah, 3.0 is bare bones but their plans sound cool. I'll assume you've seen the mining and repair deep dives? Game play will be added, you know, almost as if it's an alpha or something...

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/14522-Design-Notes-Mining
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/15062-Ship-Repair-And-Maintenance
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 30, 2017, 09:25:44 AM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.

Production Schedule and 3.0 by Will "Soulcrusher" Leverett


Hi there SC fam!

There’s been quite a bit of healthy discussion about our recent Production Schedule update, so I thought I’d share a few thoughts and comments:

Our Production Schedule updates that you see are right out of the same software that our production team uses. No edits, no censors, no marketing spin.

We’ve created this as a service to you to keep you informed of what we are working on, with the goal of providing estimated date ranges.
As with all estimates, they can change. When venturing off into uncharted territory, one does not always see or know all of the challenges ahead of them; they are often complete unknowns until they present themselves along the way.
We’ve pushed far past the technological boundaries that were previously considered impossible to build the foundation of the Star Citizen universe. Working on 3.0 has certainly introduced variables and challenges that we could never have anticipated, and these just do not always cater to a tidy date on a calendar.

As gamers, we are conditioned to consider all dates as static points in time that we can wrap our heads around and plan for in advance. The nature of this project does not neatly fit into that mold due to the complexity of what we’re building, and with what we learn about what's possible and needed along the way. These date ranges are dynamic according to the challenges presented to us at that time, and we actively maintain that to keep you up to date.

The scope of 3.0 is not insignificant, as Chris discussed in https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//15842-Letter-From-The-Chairman-The-Road-Ahead. It introduces a level of tech and infrastructure that’s an order of magnitude larger and more complex than all of our previous versions combined. There are thousands of new assets, millions of entities to manage, new UI, new features, multiple new backend services, etc. all being introduced in 3.0.
Integrating all of this has revealed to be MUCH more of a bug fixing project than anticipated, which obviously reshapes those estimates and changes those dates. Hammering in a level of polish that we’ve not aimed for before requires an additional adjustment of dates.

There’s certainly no malice behind it, and anyone who makes that claim is providing an uninformed opinion. Ask any project manager or developer who worked on sophisticated software or has been involved on a complex project with lots of dependencies and moving parts. They'll gladly share how challenging a task of estimates can be.
The heroic efforts of those creating and maintaining the Production Schedule should be commended. They represent our efforts to keep up with this complex and ever evolving ecosystem, and work tirelessly to keep you up to date through regular sweat and tears (and I think I saw blood once). It’s its own massive behemoth of a project, and they do it each week for you.  

It's just not in our DNA to hold updates and content back. We simply don’t do that. When it’s ready for primetime, it’s out the door for you to enjoy.

It’s also important to consider that what 3.0 meant a year ago is a shadow of what 3.0 means today. Back then, Planetary Tech would have offered a fraction of the freedom that it does in 3.0, and most of the numerous infrastructure updates going into it now did not exist. [WL: Edited previous sentence for clarity] Roughly speaking, the approach was that we’d be able to deliver four roughly built, predetermined, pre-scripted, landing zones. The reality is that those would have been rather limited, and ultimately, somewhat of a variation of what Area 18 ArcCorp is today in terms of features and functionality.

Today, 3.0 is about delivering an entirely explorable solar system with the backend services to make it dynamic. It’s about giving us the city and planet building tools to create for you the rest of the universe in an intelligent, scalable, efficient, and compelling manner. It’s about the first step in giving you the tools to create player outposts and communities. It’s about the streaming tech to allow you to take off from one moon, fly across the system, and land on an entirely different moon, the driving a freaking sweet buggy out of the back of your ship to race around the entire planet... all without a loading screen. It’s about giving you the ability to buy what’s on the web inside kiosks. It’s about usable turret gameplay, and Items 2.0 so you can customize your own ship with new components. It’s about picking objects and cargo so you can haul commodities across space as a trader and merchant. It’s about gutting a singleplayer engine to support thousands of players. It’s about infrastructure that we needed to develop because there are no off-the-shelf solutions for building an immersive experience like no other.

And that’s just part of what's in 3.0!

The entire company is working feverishly to get you 3.0. Our goal is to provide you with the most amazing gaming experience ever. We’ve learned that we can deliver something better than the original 3.0, something bigger, something pretty groundbreaking, something magnificent.

That doesn’t always keep to a schedule, but we think it’s ok to take the time to do it right.  

Happy Sunday everyone,
Will "Soulcrusher" Leverett
Director of Player Relations

Source https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/production-schedule-and-3-0
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 30, 2017, 09:49:28 AM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.

 :vince:  :bravo:
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 30, 2017, 10:15:36 AM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.

LOL!! The sad part is that you're really serious.   :laugh:

ps: Admitting to increasing the scope of a project, complete with excuses and zero accountability, isn't "seemingly honest"  :bahgawd:

Meanwhile, over on Reddit... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6qhhx6/production_schedule_and_30_by_will_soulcrusher/)
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 30, 2017, 11:08:59 AM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.

LOL!! The sad part is that you're really serious.   :laugh:

ps: Admitting to increasing the scope of a project, complete with excuses and zero accountability, isn't "seemingly honest"  :bahgawd:

Meanwhile, over on Reddit... (https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6qhhx6/production_schedule_and_30_by_will_soulcrusher/)

Why would they need to admit to increasing the scope? That's a strange thing to say. They've mentioned the increasing scope many times.

Some have picked up on one part of the post apparently contradicting Chris but on the whole it feels like an honest bunch of words from a passionate and dedicated developer.

Some blinded by confirmation bias may see it differently I suppose. The project's a mess and unsalvageable, therefore he's lying. S-l-o-w c-l-a-p.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Karmic Cake on July 30, 2017, 08:27:18 PM
Who needs a game when you get to read good, heartfelt and seemingly honest posts.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 30, 2017, 10:20:21 PM
Who needs a game when you get to read good, heartfelt and seemingly honest posts.

Nobody needs a game. Waiting for something special is OK for me. Lots of other games to play. I'm in no rush.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 30, 2017, 11:53:51 PM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.
Production Schedule and 3.0 by Will "Soulcrusher" Leverett


 Yeah, sure :D
 Only thing that works by schedule are ship sales... :D   

 
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 30, 2017, 11:57:16 PM
Who needs a game when you get to read good, heartfelt and seemingly honest posts.
Nobody needs a game.

 Yes, looking at v2.6.3 (current result after 5-6 years of dev) is clear that better is to wait forever, since game will be disappointment or average in best scenario at the end, if ever released.. 
 
         
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 31, 2017, 01:01:58 AM
This is a good post, heart felt and seemingly honest.
Production Schedule and 3.0 by Will "Soulcrusher" Leverett


 Yeah, sure :D
 Only thing that works by schedule are ship sales... :D   

Is it a crime for a company to sell what it produces? Is anyone forced into buying? Does Chris come round my house with a gun?

Who needs a game when you get to read good, heartfelt and seemingly honest posts.
Nobody needs a game.

 Yes, looking at v2.6.3 (current result after 5-6 years of dev) is clear that better is to wait forever, since game will be disappointment or average in best scenario at the end, if ever released.. 

It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Narrenbart on July 31, 2017, 01:14:39 AM
It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.
But who will pay for it, who will pay the 400+ devs all the years to come
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 31, 2017, 01:27:34 AM
It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.
But who will pay for it, who will pay the 400+ devs all the years to come

Good question, I quess rich people, for example this SC youtuber:   


Nice setup, i guess he can easily afford to buy expensive ships every year, too..


My prediction currently is: that whales will accept v3.0 as enough "progress" and continue to give them money, so they will survive till 2018...   
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 31, 2017, 01:35:47 AM
Is it a crime for a company to sell what it produces? Is anyone forced into buying? Does Chris come round my house with a gun?

 Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 So in the end they are exploiting people who are irresponsible with their money...and I personally don't like that...             

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 31, 2017, 03:14:44 AM
It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.
But who will pay for it, who will pay the 400+ devs all the years to come

Funding continues. 3.0 release, Gamescom, citizencon and Squadron 42 will provide many more millions. They'll be ok for a while yet.

Is it a crime for a company to sell what it produces? Is anyone forced into buying? Does Chris come round my house with a gun?

 Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 So in the end they are exploiting people who are irresponsible with their money...and I personally don't like that...             



What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit. Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.

Do you really think backers pre purchase based on estimated completion dates of individual components?

"Oh look, they've nearly completed volumetric fog, imma gonna buy a freelancer now" said no-one, ever.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: N0mad on July 31, 2017, 03:39:38 AM

What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit. Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.

Wow, this thread is entertaining - I can't wait for Derek's response now.

I guess the main allegation is whether or not CIG are intentionally deceiving their backers. Answers on a postcard...
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 31, 2017, 03:39:47 AM

 – Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
 – Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit.
 Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.


  That Week A and Week B observation is NOT from Derek, originally it was posted by some backer in CIG forums...

  At this point their "schedule" are pointless, it exists only to calm down backers to show some ongoing "progress"...

  In general they have huge management issues starting from top - CR is already known for NOT delivering in time and on budget (Freelancer..)..so here is high change that history will repeat itself...

1)  Pre-Alfa already shows some strange attempts to reinvent the Wheel - head bobbing lol that all the time "jumping" radar...
2)  Some ships with bad cockpit views...I guess they are not designed for humans to fly...
3) overcomplicated  ships designs for "MMO" (where you need to keep things simple to have descent performance) that game engine can not handle even in offline mode...because they are using engine that was designed for single player FPS :D     

 so best possible outcome - average game with strange design decisions and performance issues..   

Probably game will be forever in alfa until funding stops...

 

   
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 31, 2017, 05:29:34 AM

 – Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
 – Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit.
 Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.


  At this point their "schedule" are pointless, it exists only to calm down backers to show some ongoing "progress"...

  In general they have huge management issues starting from top - CR is already known for NOT delivering in time and on budget (Freelancer..)..so here is high change that history will repeat itself...

1)  Pre-Alfa already shows some strange attempts to reinvent the Wheel - head bobbing lol that all the time "jumping" radar...
2)  Some ships with bad cockpit views...I guess they are not designed for humans to fly...
3) overcomplicated  ships designs for "MMO" (where you need to keep things simple to have descent performance) that game engine can not handle even in offline mode...because they are using engine that was designed for single player FPS :D     

 so best possible outcome - average game with strange design decisions and performance issues..   

Probably game will be forever in alfa until funding stops...

The schedule is the internal one if Will is telling the truth. It shows where they want to be. It's not an exact science. Accurate and something to bet on? No. Their best guess for now? I believe so.

The head bob/stabilisation work was required because of the desire to have a unified 1st and 3rd person animation set and for bullets to come from the barrel of the gun and not just the centre of the screen or characters head as in most games. It wasn't trivial but was needed. The human brain does a great job of stabilising our vision.

The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

Best possible outcome isn't an everage game. That's daft. Of course they can make it work with time and money and seeing as they don't have a fixed budget nor time frame and backers seem willing to continue funding, who knows what they can achieve. Microsoft had a fixed budget. GIG doesn't.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Motto on July 31, 2017, 05:52:52 AM
It all doesn't matter anymore now, the game is almost over.

Chris has stated that if funding went dry this day, they'd still have enough money to finish the game SQ42 and that the revenues generated by SQ42 would enable them to complete the rest of SC. So, in building the games, money is no issue. However, the fact that they haven't build anything regarding SQ42, or are still failing at delivering something worth playable at all might, but let's not look to deep into that.

Let's assume that CIG has money issues. Recent events are a strong indication of that. The ungoing sales for cash only, the loan in the UK et cetera are clear signs of that. They spend most of the money they received in the past years on all their studios, the staff etc. yet have little finished product to show for and the new income stream isn't enough to cover the monthly expenses. So, there comes a point when the costs are higher than the money left. If you know that's coming, the best things to do are:

1. increasing the income
2. cutting down expenses

Since 1. is clearly getting exhausted, mainly because of the fact they still can't produce a decent Alpha build and keep on feeding the backers lots of BS, only 2. remains. However, telling the community that despite the fact that there still isn't a game after all those years and money spend, expenses have to be cut down by closing offices - therefore also reducing the people actually working on the game - is not a real option. It would be regarded as proof that the money is gone. After 155m having to admit to the backers that there is not enough money left to continue building on the old scale would be killing. The only way to avoid that, other than releasing a working game as promised (or full financial disclosure), is to act as if nothing is wrong. Meaning burning through the remaining money at the same speed.

So, what to do? At Gamescom 2016 Chris stated that 3.0 was nearly there. Now, a year later, 3.0 is still not there. And they are defending that by saying they almost had a working small 3.0 but decided to skip that and go for a big 3.0 with lots of extra features et cetera. Unfortunately, backers can easily point out that most if not all of those extra's were originally intented for the small 3.0 or are now even less than for the original small 3.0 release. The number of ignorant backers is getting lower, more and more are mainly fed up with being lied to. It doesn't mean they are giving up on SC yet, but the will to put in extra money (again) is drying up. Failing to be honest is getting a bigger problem for CIG than failing to deliver 3.0.

Now Gamescom 2017 is coming in three weeks. There is no 3.0 released yet, not even to the inner circle of Avocado's. Most likely reason, there isn't a 3.0 ready to be delivered. So again, a choice. Going to Gamescon without a 3.0 release. Chris would have to be a great talker to justify that after his statement from 2016. He'll probably try to deflect that with a lot of handwaving, big dreams and futuretelling and by showing beautiful R&D videoclips of things to come. Possibly with huge sandworms. They might even have a totally pre-loaded and scipted 3.0 gamerun availble for an "independent" backer to "play".  Only this time, the backers know what's coming. Been there last year, seen that last year. Yawn... So, it might spike the hype a little again, but it won't be the major revenue boost they hope for. Of course, according to their funding tracker, it will be a huge success.

The other option is putting the not-ready 3.0 out there with the Avocado's. Where it will be a major disappointment and that will leak. The frustration of waiting over a year for something that even then doesn't deliver will get the most hardcore backer over. In a way, the overhyping and overanticipating by the backers is now becoming an extra burden for CIG. There is no way to live up to those expectations.

Best scenario: succesfully feeding the hype (again) at Gamescom with lots of clips etc. to generate money. Releasing 3.0 quickly right after and hoping that a better performing 3.0x can be made available before Shitizencon in October. There another run of big stories and videoclips with the statement, see, we did release 3.0 so we're still on the slow but right track. So keep giving us money so we can complete the BDSSE.

The remaining number of totally ignorant backers will determine how long CIG can continue the current operation. My guess it won't be long now. Regardless how much everybody might want SC to succeed, it's just not going to happen.

And no, Serendipity, you don't have to rebuttal my post with arguments, quotes, statements, videolinks and what not, to show that you think there is nothing wrong with the (financial) situation of CIG, that there might or might not be a game, that delays are to be expected when building something completely new and/or of this magnitude, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We've been there, we've done that. To those here on this forum, it's obvious that Star Citizen is a disaster and that it will collapse shortly. I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly. But that's no more reality than Star Citizen ever being released.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: GaryII on July 31, 2017, 06:00:19 AM
The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

 Not that great....

 https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/starcitizen-performance-cpu-scaling-in-hacked-offl

 and thats only on 720p..
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 31, 2017, 06:00:58 AM
It's not better to wait, everyone wants the game earlier but looking at a tiny slice of what is envisioned as a barometer for the final product is short sighted at best. Let's see what 3.0 and onwards brings. Perhaps a true alpha product over pre alpha or tech demo.
But who will pay for it, who will pay the 400+ devs all the years to come

Funding continues. 3.0 release, Gamescom, citizencon and Squadron 42 will provide many more millions. They'll be ok for a while yet.

Is it a crime for a company to sell what it produces? Is anyone forced into buying? Does Chris come round my house with a gun?

 Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.
– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

 So in the end they are exploiting people who are irresponsible with their money...and I personally don't like that...             

What you're suggesting has no basis in fact. You're just parroting Derek's malicious agenda with no evidence that's intentional deceit. Read the post I pasted from Will Leverett. Read the caveats from the schedule itself.

Do you really think backers pre purchase based on estimated completion dates of individual components?

"Oh look, they've nearly completed volumetric fog, imma gonna buy a freelancer now" said no-one, ever.

Let me break down his post for you because I feel that you are having a difficult time reconciling it.

Quote
Its not a crime, but they definitely have very dishonest marketing practices like this:

Actually fraud is a crime. So are fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment etc. While violating of an agreement (the ToS) is subject to civil legal action.

If LYING to backers was perfectly OK, and not a crime, State and Fed officials won't have systematically taken legal action against various crowd-funding projects. And since those sort of investigations do take time, I am certain that many are in the works even as I type this.

Also, that's why the FTC has a wealth of resources on it's website dedicated to DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

Quote
– Week A: delay critical tasks, add a few fluff tasks, do not delay overall launch prediction. Sales are usually held during these weeks.

This is an actual fact, backed by metrics.

The 3.0 schedule released in April and with a June 29th release aim date, was completely bogus. There is NO way that a project manager didn't know that it was off by as much as 90 DAYS.

So, the pattern is that instead of showing a longer release date, they pad it 2-3 weeks at a time. Trust me, it's the oldest trick in the book when dealing with publishers who pay on milestone deliveries.

While they had the Nox and Cyclone sales, the release aim date for 07/14 (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg1924#msg1924) and 07/21 (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg2049#msg2049) schedules didn't change. This despite the fact that several tasks were delayed by as much as three weeks. Then at the height of the sale, the 07/28 (http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=29.msg2163#msg2163) schedule adds another two weeks.

And in those tasks, instead of completing the important ones, they are then adding new (some of the sub-tasks) tasks, under the guise of "this will make 3.0 better". The same thing that got the game scope so bloated, and sealed its fate as an incoming disaster.

Quote
– Week B: close a few fluff tasks to convey an image of progress, delay the overall launch prediction for two weeks

And they've been doing this consistently since the first 3.0 schedule in April. And not only that, in the June-July schedules, entire tasks which were once marked completed, changed to TBD, or had no status at all. Which leads most of us devs to believe that the original status was bogus.

When I wrote a few times back in late 2016 and earlier this year that sources told me that "3.0 didn't exist", some people didn't believe me. I didn't believe it at first. So, I would like someone to explain to me how a 3.0 that was touted in Aug 2016, "shown" in Oct 2016, and "estimated" to be coming on|before Dec 19 2016, ended up now being + 8 months late, and will probably be a full 12 months before it is released to all backers.

Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 31, 2017, 06:09:00 AM
It all doesn't matter anymore now, the game is almost over.

Chris has stated that if funding went dry this day, they'd still have enough money to finish the game SQ42 and that the revenues generated by SQ42 would enable them to complete the rest of SC. So, in building the games, money is no issue. However, the fact that they haven't build anything regarding SQ42, or are still failing at delivering something worth playable at all might, but let's not look to deep into that.

Let's assume that CIG has money issues. Recent events are a strong indication of that. The ungoing sales for cash only, the loan in the UK et cetera are clear signs of that. They spend most of the money they received in the past years on all their studios, the staff etc. yet have little finished product to show for and the new income stream isn't enough to cover the monthly expenses. So, there comes a point when the costs are higher than the money left. If you know that's coming, the best things to do are:

1. increasing the income
2. cutting down expenses

Since 1. is clearly getting exhausted, mainly because of the fact they still can't produce a decent Alpha build and keep on feeding the backers lots of BS, only 2. remains. However, telling the community that despite the fact that there still isn't a game after all those years and money spend, expenses have to be cut down by closing offices - therefore also reducing the people actually working on the game - is not a real option. It would be regarded as proof that the money is gone. After 155m having to admit to the backers that there is not enough money left to continue building on the old scale would be killing. The only way to avoid that, other than releasing a working game as promised (or full financial disclosure), is to act as if nothing is wrong. Meaning burning through the remaining money at the same speed.

So, what to do? At Gamescom 2016 Chris stated that 3.0 was nearly there. Now, a year later, 3.0 is still not there. And they are defending that by saying they almost had a working small 3.0 but decided to skip that and go for a big 3.0 with lost of extra features et cetera. Unfortunately, backers can easily point out that most if not all off those extra's where originally intented for the small 3.0 or are now even less than for the original small 3.0 release. The number of ignorant backers is getting lower, more and more are mainly fed up with being lied to. It doesn't mean they are giving up on SC yet, but the will to put in extra money (again) is drying up. Failing to be honest is getting a bigger problem for CIG than failing to deliver 3.0.

Now Gamescom 2017 is coming in three weeks. There is no 3.0 released yet, not even to the inner circle of Avocado's. Most likely reason, there isn't a 3.0 ready to be delivered. So again, a choice. Going to Gamescon without a 3.0 release. Chris would have to be a great talker to justify that after his statement from 2016. He'll probably try to deflect that with a lot of handwaving, big dreams and futuretelling and by showing beautiful R&D videoclips of things to come. Possibly with huge sandworms. They might even have a totally pre-loaded and scipted 3.0 gamerun availble for a "independent" backer to "play".  Only this time, the backers know what's coming. Been there last year, seen that last year. Yawn... So, it might spike the hype a little again, but it won't be the major revenue boost they hope for. Of course, according to their funding tracker, it will be a huge success.

The other option is putting the not-ready 3.0 out there with the Avocado's. Where it will be a major disappointment and that will leak. The frustration of waiting over a year for something that even then doesn't deliver will get the most hardcore backer over. In a way, the overhyping and overanticipating by the backers is now becoming an extra burden for CIG. There is no way to live up to those expectations.

Best scenario: succesfully feeding the hype (again) at Gamescom with lots of clips etc. to generate money. Releasing 3.0 quickly right after and hoping that a better performing 3.0x can be made available before Shitizencon in October. There another run of big stories and videoclips with the statement, see, we did release 3.0 so we're still on the slow but right track. So keep giving us money so we can complete the BDSSE.

The remaining number of totally ignorant backers will determine how long CIG can continue the current operation. My guess it won't be long now. Regardless how much everybody might want SC to succeed, it's just not going to happen.

And no, Serendipity, you don't have to rebuttal my post with arguments, quotes, statements, videolinks and what not, to show that you think there is nothing wrong with the (financial) situation of CIG, that there might or might not be a game, that delays are to be expected when building something completely new and/or of this magnitude, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We've been there, we've done that. To those here on this forum, it's obvious that Star Citizen is a disaster and that it will collapse shortly. I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that's he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly. But that's no more reality than Star Citizen ever being released.

Brilliant post. I believe we have a contender for my posting crown  :five: :five: :five:

I don't personally believe that they will release it to Evocati during GamesCom unless it is in a playable state that's going to amaze rather than annoy. This is because, with all the angst, and /r/StarCitizen having lifted their "No Evocati" rules, comments and opinions it WILL leak. Once that happens, depending on what those testers believe - though it is very likely that there are loyalists among them who will lie or try to downplay it as "pre-alpha", the sentiment will be a sea change. That's what I believe will be the final nail in the coffin.

This project will never make it to 4.0.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 31, 2017, 06:11:50 AM
The engine has been significantly reworked and it performs absolutely fine in offline mode or when the server is fresh or empty. Netcode is holding it all back for now.

You DO realize that it's an online-only game, right?

Also, no, the performance isn't "absolutely fine". Geez man, you're not even trying anymore. If anything, even the most hardcore SC loyalists know that the game is an absolute performance hog.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: dsmart on July 31, 2017, 06:14:56 AM
Some backers, sensing the beginning of the end or something, have once again started trotting out the "backers voted for the increased scope bullshit", while engaging in obfuscation and revisionist history.

In fact, as I wrote here (http://dereksmart.com/2016/06/star-citizen-fidelity-of-failure/#comment-3407) about a year ago, that notion is patently false.  The 11-03-2012 stretch goals poll (https://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12760-Poll-Additional-Stretch-Goals), and the 07-17-2013 funding counter poll (https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/13266-Letter-From-The-Chairman-19-Million) did no such thing. And even if it did, it was still up to Chris to know when to say no, or when to determine whether or not it could be done. But regardless, in Nov 2014, after raising $65M, the project scope was significantly increased, thus sealing its fate and dooming it to the failure it is now facing.

Quote
That’s the third time you’ve posted the same link to the same poll, disregarding points raised that the poll data doesn’t show any consensus or agreement in any of the options, since not even a simple majority agrees on any one option despite each participant being allowed to select 3 options. Members of the active SC community were given 3 votes each and still failed to put any of the options above 40% support, which suggests that there is no majority support from the community for any of the expansion options.

If anything, giving people 3 choices each instead of 1 should have made it easier for any one option to hit 50%, but that still didn’t happen. All this shows is that CIG polled the community and then promptly disregarded the results, opting to proceed with their own plan instead, and certainly doesn’t support your assertion that the changes were voted and agreed upon by the community.
Title: Re: Star Citizen - The Game
Post by: Serendipity on July 31, 2017, 08:28:38 AM
Quote
  I'll be the second (after Derek) to admit that's he was wrong if we're still all here in a couple of years predicting CIG will fall over shortly.

Derek's been saying it for 2 years already. Let's see where we are in another 12 months.