|
Toblakai posted:It's gone, what was it? It was a tweet about a defendant in Mississippi or something being denied an appeal because his request to the police for a lawyer was ambiguous. He said he "needed a lawyer, dog", and he might've been asking for a lawyer who was a dog. Thread meme of "legal" being a dog, etc. Looks like he remade the tweet: https://twitter.com/cjciaramella/status/925025023676608512 Edit: Counts as tax.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:There are still a few bugs preventing a wider PTU release. We're making good progress though - fps has increased greatly. To what, from what? Why work the entire year on an FPS increase? You hopeful for the return of the monthly patches given that they've spent since July polishing? Dusty Lens posted:He literally promised the world and then didn't deliver anything. We're a year off knowing what the actual mining mechanisms are since they sold that ship. Let alone the news van. There's going to be so much unfinished poo poo when the money runs out. Take even a small section of the talk on the Pioneer, and it's literally a set of mechanics divorced from any of the actually produced code or gameplay demos. Even the 3.0 candidate they had on the floor appeared to offer the same weird physics that we saw for the Gamescom demo. Reading that Visceral Story that SomethingJones linked; quote:Then the problems started. Throughout 2015 and then the rest of development, Hennig began clashing with others at Visceral, particularly the design team, according to all of the staff who spoke to me for this story. Designers described Hennig as a brilliant writer and story-teller who was spread too thin on Ragtag. Because she wanted to direct every aspect of the game, and many decisions had to run through her, it became difficult for Visceral staff to get her attention. She would work long hours and weekends, but she also spent a great deal of time flying down to Los Angeles to record with actors. Some told anecdotes about waiting weeks or months just to get her approval on something they’d done, only to find out that it didn’t meet her standards. Hav fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:There are still a few bugs preventing a wider PTU release. We're making good progress though - fps has increased greatly. Has there been an improvement in the collision detection and clipping issues? Not being a dick, I would like to know
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:There are still a few bugs preventing a wider PTU release. We're making good progress though - fps has increased greatly. Is the average FPS two or three times as many years as the game as been in pre-alpha. Fingers crossed for four.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:AI is still barebones and unchanged from GAMESCOM. This should not be a thing 6 years into development.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Has there been an improvement in the collision detection and clipping issues? Collision detection notification have since been toned-down and appears to be more accurate, but it's not the case for some of the ships (such as the Xi'an). I'm not noticing many clipping issues with ships, but have noticed a couple for wheels once planetside. They're working on those now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Isn't the current remaining bugs' graph, just the bugs till the next phase of Evocati testing for additional features?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Hav posted:It's less a stitch together than a streaming map, but then they couldn't actually demonstrate two people seeing the same stream, could they, because it was generated for a single observer. Well, if they've done pcg correctly, the geometry, textures, etc are not generated server-side and streamed over the pipe to client. The algorithms and textures live on client, so the client has all the tools, and the server just sends a seed. The client plugs the seed into the algorithm, generates the geometry as player approaches a new region, and splats it down as seamlessly as possible once it hits draw distance. This is why shitizens bragging about "hey guys lol star citizen doesn't have draw distance, most revolutionary game ever  " is so hilarious. Because draw distance is literally how pcg works.They just need to make sure the algorithms are seeded pseudorandom, so that they produce the same random result every time they're run. I mean, if CIG didn't do it that way, then literally all of their pcg code needs to be re-written. Hav posted:Where is 3.0, BTW? Did all those people who've played it not _actually_ play it, or do you maybe suspect that they were shown a demo within specific guardrails? This is the point. Whenever CIG tries to make something that is real, tangible, and dare I say, playable, it's a total catastrophe. This is why their Citcon preso was brilliant. Give the people what they want: hopes and dreams of a better tomorrow. The last thing CIG should ever do is release playable software to its backers, because the great and powerful Oz will be revealed as some creeper behind a curtain turning wheels and knobs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Collision detection notification have since been toned-down and appears to be more accurate, but it's not the case for some of the ships (such as the Xi'an). what about running against a door until you clip through it
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
SCtrumpHaters posted:I know you are bitter about citcon but the solution is self honesty. They have something special here You're not wrong on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:Kotaku spoke to a dozen ex-Visceral devs, this is an amazing read quote:Over the past week I’ve talked to nearly a dozen former Visceral employees who worked on Ragtag, all of whom spoke anonymously because they did not want to risk damaging their careers. I’ve also spoken to several other developers who are tangentially connected to Visceral. They all share similar stories. Ragtag was a project sunk by many factors, including a lack of resources, a vision that was too ambitious for its budget, a difficult game engine, a director who clashed with staff, a studio located in one of the most expensive cities in the world, a reputation for toxicity, multiple conflicts between Visceral and EA, and what can only be described as the curse of Star Wars. drat, sounds like this other game company I know...
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Comparatively, communication still remains more open and public than pretty much any other title I've seen - and I'm glad of it. Thank you about not gloating (lol, how could you?) but you must be making GBS threads us with that sentence, right? Like, do a direct comparison between citcon and, dunno, every other loving video game conference? Compare it directly to the Frontier one. The dates announced, the detailed development charts, the explanation behind design decisions, the showcase of gameplay? That's also open and public, but more importantly informative in a way that SC's vague promises are not. SC may be very open and public, but it's open and public in the same way an encrypted message posted on a forum is. Everybody can read the gibberish but no info can be extracted from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:I'm the in-game independent forensics analyst/referee Tie-breaker: Total amount pledged
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:deliver little, but show big What was your favorite piece of new gameplay from the big show? I do agree that they continue to deliver little though, spot on analysis. ManofManyAliases posted:It appears, however, that what was shown was the tip of an iceberg that remains shrouded in the mystery of game development. Comparatively, communication still remains more open and public than pretty much any other title I've seen - and I'm glad of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:Collision detection notification have since been toned-down and appears to be more accurate, but it's not the case for some of the ships (such as the Xi'an). Thanks It seems to me that without any of that stuff working there isn't a hope in hell of a game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Mr Fronts posted:No, I reckon most "potential" backers who worked in the financial systems industry heard Roberts' idiotic initial project plan, sized it up as bullshit right away, and steered clear. I mean, that sales pitch. Multiple teams/contractors developing modules in parallel, then slotting them together to make an integrated product? Sure, there are established ways to do that - it's a pretty commonplace project approach, after all. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
trucutru posted:Thank you about not gloating (lol, how could you?) but you must be making GBS threads us with that sentence, right? Like, do a direct comparison between citcon and, dunno, every other loving video game conference? Compare it directly to the Frontier one. The dates announced, the detailed development charts, the explanation behind design decisions, the showcase of gameplay? That's also open and public, but more importantly informative in a way that SC's vague promises are not. Open development is the excuse for everything being broken and poo poo. Some see right through this, others buy it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Some guy with a 980ti was getting 18FPS but moma says framerate has improved so that's alright. Is it now 19?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
alphabettitouretti posted:Some guy with a 980ti was getting 18FPS but moma says framerate has improved so that's alright. Is it now 19? It's significant as in they can actually measure a positive change this time groundbreaking
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Daztek posted:what about running against a door until you clip through it While possibly a funny attempt and mockery, I have not witnessed this yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:While possibly a funny attempt and mockery, I have not witnessed this yet. Have you witnessed anything of 3.0 tho? As far as I know you're not in the Avocados. Is your witnessing limited to leaks?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
trucutru posted:Have you witnessed anything tho? As far as I know you're not in the Avocados. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
First hand? (as in you playing 3.0) Or are we talking about videos and leaks? trucutru fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:While possibly a funny attempt and mockery, I have not witnessed this yet. Check it out. 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r6EtT6Pa_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiq8qLqpOJs 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaPbELroKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbwsGtDS8g From 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkiGGouHqws I'm sure it's fine in 3.0, though. Ship hatches will work good too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Toops posted:Well, if they've done pcg correctly, the geometry, textures, etc are not generated server-side and streamed over the pipe to client. And what does your heart tell you? more from the Visceral story; quote:Working with a big publisher often means embracing poor game development practices just to impress fans and executives, which is what Visceral had done, according to people who worked on that demo. “If you looked at it objectively, you’d be like, ‘There’s nothing here,’” said one. “Dodger can do like three things. But it was cut in a specific way that looked interesting, and visually it was really nice looking.” tee hee trucutru posted:First hand? (as in you playing the game) Or are we talking about videos and leaks? 'Witnessed' means first hand. I'm not sure why you'd doubt MoMa. His predictions have been spot on, for a large enough value of 'spot'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
I haven't seen any real discussion on the cost of building a hardware architecture that would be able to deliver this MMO. Maybe someone has a much better idea of the actual design but I honestly can't see this not costing a tremendous amount of the $160M they have collected from donors. Not taking into account the hosting, gateway, DB, networking, etc. Just the servers needed to supply 1.8-2M players (a third of that for max concurrent activity let's say 600,000) @ 24 players per server (seems like their hoped for target right now) would equal almost 25,000 servers. If they were to buy them it would be more than $50M using a base $2K server. Leasing would be close to $1.3M per month. Again, this doesn't take into account the rest of the hardware requirements to deliver this so pretty conservative in my opinion. I just don't see this as being financially feasible. Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
You going to report them for breaking the NDA and thus THE loving LAW?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
monkeytek posted:Am I missing something here? faith
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
monkeytek posted:I just don't see this as being financially feasible. Am I missing something here? They say that they're going to rely on Amazon compute. They suggest that they might be able to produce enough microservices to spread out the load to utilize lambda. None of that makes much sense given the actual networking bandwidth they're going to need, as Amazon is effectively commercial compute which doesn't give a gently caress about your shooter latency. There's also the linear extrapolation of everyone buying in when the game is released, which is always fun to hear. You know, the way that WoW kept up the linear expansion beyond 8 millon. Golli posted:faith -
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
monkeytek posted:I haven't seen any real discussion on the cost of building a hardware architecture that would be able to deliver this MMO. There aren't 2 million players, that's the number of forum accounts. The number of suckers, I mean crowdfunders, is far, far below that. The current alpha never has more than a handful of people playing it, like single digit people in the modes other than wankpod mode, I forget the name of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:There are still a few bugs preventing a wider PTU release. We're making good progress though - fps has increased greatly. PLANET #1120 NO LONGER RESISTS. THE PLANS OF OFFENSE AS OUTLINED CONTINUE SMOOTHLY. THE ENEMY WEAKENS VISIBLY AND THE ULTIMATE ENDS IN VIEW WILL SURELY BE GAINED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:https://twitter.com/cjciaramella/status/925014422954930181 "No price too high"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
monkeytek posted:I haven't seen any real discussion on the cost of building a hardware architecture that would be able to deliver this MMO. CIG's model (as apparent as it can be currently) is around the sale of UEC. Everything in design, or on the way, supports users purchasing UEC for consumables on a monthly basis. Example: right now, CIG released designs for upgradeable ship components (not less than 3 categories, 4 subsets of each category, and 4 types of consumable per subset). With 48 different consumables possible for ship upgrade components and depending on how often they need to be changed/modified/replaced, people either have to keep up on missions or pirating to obtain UEC, or will resort directly to monthly purchases of UEC. And that is only one type of component in an early design stage. I see the reasoning for the complexity of ships and mechanics as allowing for multi-faceted ways to earn income without the need for a subscription-based model. While subs may still be available post launch, I don't think they'll necessarily be able to sustain costs in and of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Please tell me if I understand door bugs in this game right: The doors and hatches are normal collidable geometry. Each part of a door has it's own collider. These parts remain collidable while animating (a keyframed animation with no force limits; infinite strength). The player's body is made up of colliders attached to bones. So, if the player's arm extends out, the colliders extend as well to envelop it. The player's animations are also keyframed, infinite strength, with no force/spring/muscle simulation. So when a player is trying to crawl through, for example, a ship hatch: -Their body collider(s) are animating arbitrarily according to how the player moves/aims gun/steps feet. - Sometimes the player's collidable pose will actually exceed the space in which it has to fit in the hatch. These colliders are mashing up against (or into) the ship/hatch collider geometry. -The door/hatch also has animations that will make door colliders mash up/into against the player's body colliders. Imagine if a ramp extended and presses down on a player's head while animating. -The game tries to reconcile the interpenetrations by applying forces the the player and ship, but if the player is wedged a certain way, this is impossible. - The player is hurled into space, clips through the door, into the ceiling, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:CIG's model (as apparent as it can be currently) is around the sale of UEC. Everything in design, or on the way, supports users purchasing UEC for consumables on a monthly basis. Example: right now, CIG released designs for upgradeable ship components (not less than 3 categories, 4 subsets of each category, and 4 types of consumable per subset). With 48 different consumables possible for ship upgrade components and depending on how often they need to be changed/modified/replaced, people either have to keep up on missions or pirating to obtain UEC, or will resort directly to monthly purchases of UEC. And that is only one type of component in an early design stage. I see the reasoning for the complexity of ships and mechanics as allowing for multi-faceted ways to earn income without the need for a subscription-based model. While subs may still be available post launch, I don't think they'll necessarily be able to sustain costs in and of themselves. lol, you thought about this more than Croberts https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/79m4r0/citizencon_2947_interview_with_chris_roberts/dp32d0d/?context=3 quote:Q: What's the current plans of after-release monetization? Like, you said, you will only sell UEC after the release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Hav posted:They say that they're going to rely on Amazon compute. They suggest that they might be able to produce enough microservices to spread out the load to utilize lambda. None of that makes much sense given the actual networking bandwidth they're going to need, as Amazon is effectively commercial compute which doesn't give a gently caress about your shooter latency. How much bandwidth per client do you suppose is actually necessary if we're talking about refined serialized variables that now only transmit the deltas for each client instead of whole models like in the past (40-60 mb per ship down to less than 4-5mb)? Or, with zoning that was described as only exhibiting the physics, models, variables, etc for a particular zone in a particular instance as the client travels through? Are you saying that Amazon compute is incapable or that the requirements are so outlandish that it's not possible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:CIG's model (as apparent as it can be currently) is around the sale of UEC. Everything in design, or on the way, supports users purchasing UEC for consumables on a monthly basis. Example: right now, CIG released designs for upgradeable ship components (not less than 3 categories, 4 subsets of each category, and 4 types of consumable per subset). With 48 different consumables possible for ship upgrade components and depending on how often they need to be changed/modified/replaced, people either have to keep up on missions or pirating to obtain UEC, or will resort directly to monthly purchases of UEC. And that is only one type of component in an early design stage. I see the reasoning for the complexity of ships and mechanics as allowing for multi-faceted ways to earn income without the need for a subscription-based model. While subs may still be available post launch, I don't think they'll necessarily be able to sustain costs in and of themselves. MoMA, why won't you answer my question? Have you played, or witnessed (first hand) someone playing the starcitizen 3.0 build that has been tested by Evocati in the last month or so? Please specify which one in your answer. A simple "yes" is not enough. trucutru fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Daztek posted:lol, you thought about this more than Croberts I've had offline discussions with people about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
trucutru posted:MoMA, why won't you answer my question. Have you played, or witnessed (first hand) someone playing the starcitizen 3.0 build that has been tested by Evocati in the last month or so? Both - so yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
ManofManyAliases posted:CIG's model (as apparent as it can be currently) is around the sale of UEC. Everything in design, or on the way, supports users purchasing UEC for consumables on a monthly basis. Example: right now, CIG released designs for upgradeable ship components (not less than 3 categories, 4 subsets of each category, and 4 types of consumable per subset). With 48 different consumables possible for ship upgrade components and depending on how often they need to be changed/modified/replaced, people either have to keep up on missions or pirating to obtain UEC, or will resort directly to monthly purchases of UEC. And that is only one type of component in an early design stage. I see the reasoning for the complexity of ships and mechanics as allowing for multi-faceted ways to earn income without the need for a subscription-based model. While subs may still be available post launch, I don't think they'll necessarily be able to sustain costs in and of themselves. Sooo... pay to win?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:22
|
|
