|
ripptide posted:Ahhh, the "Ben Lesnik" stretch goal. No in that case it comes with a news van.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
D_Smart posted:When I posted that he had money in Star Citizen, not only did he deny it, others didn't believe me. You are forgetting who's who in this thread, man. Who is it you're quoting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:You are forgetting who's who in this thread, man. Who is it you're quoting? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Didn't CIG own their version of Cryengine? Having source code access doesn't mean they outright own the engine. When they negotiated the original license they were a cash strapped indie start up, so I doubt they paid anymore than a basic commercial license for one game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
AbstractNapper posted:So the So Ben Parry is single-handedly destroying all of CIG's credibility by admitting that those two days of effort were a minimal swap? I'm sure Chris will appreciate that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Having source code access doesn't mean they outright own the engine. When they negotiated the original license they were a cash strapped indie start up, so I doubt they paid anymore than a basic commercial license for one game. IIRC before the big game engines became "free", licencing contracts used to involve a lump sum upfront, followed by a percentage of future sales revenue. I wonder if CryTek's money troubles since 2014 and subsequent downfall was partially due to over-reliance on the original release dates of Squadron 42 (2014) and Star Citizen (2016?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
XK posted:I've yet see anyone give a clear answer on CryEngine 4, 5, 3.x version numbers. As best I can tell, 3.6x was rebranded as 4 (possibly never officially released), and 3.8x was rebranded as 5. It's in the blog that I wrote today. It was never released. CryTek stopped using the numerals in CryEngine, but were largely ignored. So all of 3.x are known as CE3. Then, while they were working on what was to become CE4, that's when they stopped using numerals and became CryEngine internally. Which is why - as I pointed out in my blog - there is no 4.x in their changelog. That's why they did that. ps: I know most (including Cevat, the CEO) of the CryTek guys, some gone, some still there. ewe2 posted:It's been going for pages but: He's pretty much walked himself into a corner. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4944034&viewfull=1#post4944034  Also, if you look at this bullshit chart, there is no accounting for the "50%" modification to their version of CE 3.x. Like it never even existed. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Syd Syko posted:Now now, don't be bringing nuggets of truth into this cesspit of poo poo posting! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:You are forgetting who's who in this thread, man. Who is it you're quoting? There is an excerpt in my original post which you are quoting. It shows who I am responding to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Erenthal posted:No you see CIG already told us that the operating costs of the big most powerful ships will be so massive when it comes to fuel, ammo, crew, rations and so on that players will only use these ships when absolutely necessary and then only when in huge organisations. Yeah, it's hilarious how shitizens bought that load. I will literally lmao at shitizens when the reality hits them that these things "operating costs" are minimal inconveniences at worst, just like they are in E:D. Hell, I can't wait to laugh at them when crobbles anounces that they new and improved netcode is peer-2-peer instancing just like E:D. One in the Bum fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I'm sure their peer-to-peer networking will be as efficient as the downloader/patcher.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:48
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Quavers posted:https://www.twitch.tv/dangheesling Star Marine looking good https://clips.twitch.tv/dangheesling/PuzzledChoughKappaRoss
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Sabreseven posted:Kinda cool, they should keep track of little touches like this, they could call them I remember seeing this exact same thing demonstrated like 14 years ago when they debuted Battlefield 2 and showed a rocket flying through a Blackhawk
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
All the shill streamers have distract material ready to go on secondary screen that they constantly switch to, in order to hide the fact the whole game needs to be rebooted after every match and then takes forever to load.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:So Ben Parry is single-handedly destroying all of CIG's credibility by admitting that those two days of effort were a minimal swap? Not sure you can credit Ben Parry with destroying CIG credibility buds. They've done a pretty good job of doing that long before Ben started his latest "explanations".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Also, if you look at this bullshit chart, there is no accounting for the "50%" modification to their version of CE 3.x. Like it never even existed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Tinfoil Papercut posted:Guys I know this is the place to talk about the greatest game ever made or to be made, but have you tried Speed Runners? It's probably even slightly better than Star Citizen, if you can believe it. PIctured at least two games that started with early access / crowd funding, and have been super successful AND released an actual product. Rimworld is still in early access but really close to release, and they've had all major content in the game for over a year or more Darkest Dungeon is spectacular, and again has been out of early access for almost a year, with glowing reviews
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
That engine family tree makes literally no sense, the only difference is the bottom half claims cry engine is a child fork off of lumber yard???
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:There is an excerpt in my original post which you are quoting. It shows who I am responding to. You should give your legal team a list of known trolls so when they proofread your posts you don't come off looking foolish. Just a helpful tip from your ol cactus dick 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:When I posted that he had money in Star Citizen, not only did he deny it, others didn't believe me. Don't worry Mr. Smart. You haven't lead me wrong yet so I believe everything you write. You are my Internet troll idol because you troll with fact and hilarity and I too one day hope to be some kind of warlord.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:Having source code access doesn't mean they outright own the engine. When they negotiated the original license they were a cash strapped indie start up, so I doubt they paid anymore than a basic commercial license for one game. Source?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Ol Cactus Dick posted:You should give your legal team a list of known trolls so when they proofread your posts you don't come off looking foolish. He's pretty obviously yanking our chains on this. The man's being doing this for so long the chain could have choked him to death and he'd still find some way to yank it so people would think he wasn't dead. D_Smart posted:He's pretty much walked himself into a corner. Well if Ben's goal was to utterly confuse anyone who didn't understand what the gently caress they're doing with Lumberyard, he's succeeded mightily on my end. At this point the message his post gives me (where he agrees with someone's quote) is their StarEngine stuff still has nothing from Lumberyard in it? I feel like I'm wrong with that. They're obfuscating this into a loving spaghetti nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
ripptide posted:Not sure you can credit Ben Parry with destroying CIG credibility buds. They've done a pretty good job of doing that long before Ben started his latest "explanations". Yeah, but it's pretty rare that CIG actually aims for their own foot before they shoot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
AP posted:I prefer to think he's telling the truth as the idea that loads of CIG staff are trying to damage control the thread through Moma & Lladre in response to other CIG and ex-CIG staff leaking that poo poo is all hosed is funny. I liked you more when you just posted the GIFs of ships spinning jankily and weren't trying to bait momas
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
 Is this a Star Citizen
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
TheLastRoboKy posted:Well if Ben's goal was to utterly confuse anyone who didn't understand what the gently caress they're doing with Lumberyard, he's succeeded mightily on my end. At this point the message his post gives me (where he agrees with someone's quote) is their StarEngine stuff still has nothing from Lumberyard in it? I feel like I'm wrong with that. They're obfuscating this into a loving spaghetti nightmare. One of the mods actually directly warned Parry that he couldn't have his CIG hat off and discuss this kind of thing, particularly because he's not an engine dev. But it's embarrassingly wrong if he's genuine, and I have difficulty reconciling his statements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Every time I see this, I'm reminded of Scott Manley's video about true orbital-speed physics in Kerbal Space Program, where he talks about trying to collide two objects together in KSP in an "insurance scam" challenge. In the challenge, KSP is calculating at about 30 "frames" per second, but the objects in motion are moving about 4 kilometers per second, or 133 meters per frame, which turns out to be too fast for KSP to register as a collision. They literally pass through one another. Manley used a mod to slow the physics down to 1/10th speed, extending the KSP's physics fps to something like 300 per "second", slowing down the collision to about 13m per frame, slow enough for the physics to register the collision. It explained a lot about how physics engines work and how you have to tweak things to get the physics to be "correct" for the game. I remembered when I played Second Life, guns would have to shoot meter long spears for the lovely physics engine register them as a projectile hit if you used somewhat realistic velocities. That's my guess what's happening here, the missile is moving way too fast for the game engine to register the collision. D_Smart posted:Also, if you look at this bullshit chart, there is no accounting for the "50%" modification to their version of CE 3.x. Like it never even existed. I'm coming to the conclusion that whatever modifications that CIG has added are smoke and mirrors and that their design process was so focused on revenue-generating screenshots and videos and ship sales or caught in Chris' creative revision cycle that they didn't bother to actually program the game. It's clear that they were going for visuals before gameplay, since it's easier to sell that poo poo. Everything should have been grey- or orange-boxed and we haven't seen nothing like that. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:One of the mods actually directly warned Parry that he couldn't have his CIG hat off and discuss this kind of thing, particularly because he's not an engine dev. But it's embarrassingly wrong if he's genuine, and I have difficulty reconciling his statements. Anyone wanna bet that Parry is being partially paid/compensated with royalties? No one? k..... ripptide fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Syd Syko posted:Source? For a standard licensing arrangement? Why would a startup studio with a few million dollars (at the time) pay more for a multi-game/unlimited license when they were originally planning to ship one game? They may have since secured the appropriate licensing, but businesses have a tendency to try and stiff their supplier, and hold out paying their invoices until the last possible moment. CIG has made it a point that they haven't been receiving Crytek support for years now. It doesn't paint a good relationship between CIG and Crytek. Where is the source that they own the engine or shelled out for a more comprehensive license? This presupposes that they knew in advance that they would be making the $20+ million expanded scope Star Citizen, and three single player games. The original scope was designed to be built in the basic CryEngine with limited modifications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:It's been going for pages but: Yeah, no. You are assuming versions mean anything to CIG. Make one door work? 2.2 -> 2.3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Way to go, CIG. Major props all around!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Bolow posted:I remember seeing this exact same thing demonstrated like 14 years ago when they debuted Battlefield 2 and showed a rocket flying through a Blackhawk Ha, that's exactly the thing I was aiming for, I remember that same demonstration very well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:Way to go, CIG. Major props all around! pro name
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
illectro posted:Ahh don't worry about me, I've got thicker skin than anyone can imagine. Ooh, the main character is going to be a non-white guy? That would be really funny given I bet >90% of the backers are pasty white men dreaming of being Firefly captains, or the guy from Battlestar or Han Solo. Basically Video Game Avatar #3566433 specifically designed to look almost exactly like Nathan Drake from Uncharted (sorry if I'm mis remembering that name). I'd give CIG a high five for that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
The Titanic posted:Ooh, the main character is going to be a non-white guy? That would be really funny given I bet >90% of the backers are pasty white men dreaming of being Firefly captains, or the guy from Battlestar or Han Solo. Basically Video Game Avatar #3566433 specifically designed to look almost exactly like Nathan Drake from Uncharted (sorry if I'm mis remembering that name). Hey, watch it with the "pasty white guy" comments, if you please, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Chunjee posted:It's live! I'm gonna guess this is a photoshop, but I hope to find out in another page or two. I'm time traveling from the past into your present. Just takes a little while. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
Zzr posted:A shame that Lazrin/Lethality/FactsAreUseless stopped his posts here. Instead he asked a pedo-antisemit and a doxxer-racist to troll here and promised that they wouldn't be banned by doing so. Its true that I wont get banned from posting in here
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Samizdata posted:Yeah, no. You are assuming versions mean anything to CIG. Make one door work? 2.2 -> 2.3. I wasn't assuming anything about CIG, I was talking about the engine they're basing their code on. CIG can call their versions anything they want. The problem is their pretence that rebasing a fork on a later base was a simple matter. Simpler if they threw out the modifications that caused conflicts with the later development, or if they simply started again from LY. The latter is looking pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Welp. I'm still a "backer". Should I play this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
Sarsapariller posted:Fundamental Truths About Star Citizen These are all true and I believe in them. Praise Roberts!  A cat with all the bits: 
The Titanic fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 05:48
|
|