Galarox posted:

Just for you Crazy

Galarox posted:

Just for you Crazy

Preen Dog posted:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/i-have-been-cursed-as-a-ball-disappointed

quote:

When ever i re spawn i am this small ball i can't interact with anything i am in fact trapped in my room that you spawn in.I am aware that i am no special snowflake in this issue and was wondering if anybody knew when i would be cured?

Trilobite posted:

Erin's entire skeleton is slumping, taking on the appearance of an abandoned scoop of ice cream melting on the sidewalk (symbolically linked to a childhood joy ruined carelessly that no one will ever even attempt to save). Even in a single frame, the drama is almost too much to take.

Mirificus posted:

Preen Dog posted:

I don't know, any game can be slow if you code it poorly. The engine isn't going to stop you from using inefficient algorithms or neglecting optimization. It's guaranteed that SC has basically no optimization at all, as the application is just a crude front for a funding vehicle. They even spin this as a positive, implying that the performance is bad because of "fidelity". You can cut the performance of an application by any amount just by adding one unnecessary computation. Some things they're definitely screwing up:


No mesh or texture budgets for any assets (a 1% complete alpha that already what, a 30GB download?). They show no recognition that simple graphics are necessary for an MMO.

Lazy, or no, LOD implementation. The ships have at least two LODS, but I don't know if the million-poly commandos do. At least, they didn't when they were doing their 50 player load tests a few months back (4 FPS just looking at a crowd of distant commandos, 40 fps looking away).

No graphics options (lol). I wonder if there is at least a config file that you can tinker with.

Lazy, or no draw culling. If a commando is walking around in a distant ship, and the ship has windows, how do you know if you should render the commando or not? Does this client have to animate his mesh skin, or just the bones, or nothing? What about if a ship is parked in Levski, and you're not sure if it should be visible from your location, hovering outside? What if a ship is hovering behind a building, but that building has visible gaps in it? Sounds hard; just draw this stuff all the time. To be fair, they are doing some kind of tree culling for ship parts and rooms, but it's broken (Doors, ramps, and hallways sometimes flicker or disappear inappropriately). Their insistence on having objects nested within objects within objects within objects dynamically attached to other objects makes this a tough problem.

Monolithic, general-purpose shaders that are probably 95% needless calculations, most of the time (eg. the shader is computing outputs from maps that are just flat white). Why make a variety of specialized shaders when you can use a few big slow ones?

Flying physics using a plethora of forces and counter-forces that could have been simplified to a few thrusts and torques while achieving the exact same (or better) feel.

Computing physics and collisions for other ships and players when the server could just tell you were they are (the server just disagrees with you, anyway, which is why debris jitters so much, or hoverbikes spaz out if you're not the rider). Computing anything at all when these players and ships are not visible to you.

Receiving RPC noise from the server all the time. If you hear the shopkeeper speaking from across the galaxy, what other garbage information are you latently receiving? Given that players are reporting data consumption of over 200KB/s (a guy on spectrum was mad because he's on a fixed data plan) in the PU, I would guess, all of it.


All the Crysis games look fine and can be made to run smooth on the minimum hardware.

Galarox posted:

Just for you Crazy

Galarox posted:

Thanks! Still working on my special Titanic shop... about 4 hours in now and having real trouble making it work, but I'll get there. Hint: it is based upon the D450, one of my fave shitposts that you did.

Breetai posted:

Reminder that Prey looks fantastic, runs with 'localised physics grids' (transitions between rooms on the same level were gravity/air act differently) and is as smooth as loving butter, all on Cryengine.


The scene where the marketing guru explains his view on economics to Caesar would fit perfectly.

ManofManyAliases posted:

You're a loving idiot. And furthermore.

Galarox posted:

with thanks to Bofast and thanks to the others who responded, but Bofast's was perfect imo.

ManofManyAliases posted:

You're a loving idiot. And furthermore.

Galarox posted:

Mirificus posted:

Galarox posted:

lol I did actually do that and posted it. The marketing guru (Preposterus in UK english editions) is, in fact, a caricature of Jaques Chiraq, sometime French President from around the time that he was a rising political star and the mayor of Paris I believe. I can dig it up if you like, but it really wasn't my best work. I just changed "menhir" to "Jpeg" - or rather "jaypegg" on that particular page.

OldSchoolCmdr posted:

There are 4 specific and highly damaging causes of action in this complaint.

From my reading of the complaint and the response, I can safely say that even though CIG never responded to two of them - which itself are sufficient grounds for the motion to dismiss to be denied - CIG isn't likely to prevail on any of them if this goes to a jury.

It doesn't matter if CIG were to use CryEngine exclusively or not, the crux of the matter is that the GLA was never terminated, and thus, all its conditions and warranties, remain in full force and effect. What remains then are how many of the conditions were breached, and what damages can be awarded for each breach. The most damaging breach would be IP infringement if it is found that SQ42 was sold as a separate title, as it's not covered as such in the GLA. This is the same as Microsoft giving a corp 10 enterprise licenses for Windows Server, then through an audit find that they have 15 copies installed. Each of the 5 excess copies is an infringement that is subject to fees and costs.

Even if CIG owns a license they decided not to use, it doesn't release them from the other obligations in the GLA. Those being the other causes of action such as providing code changes, displaying the Crytek logo, developing more than one title etc.

The case will not just hinge on the disputed exclusivity of their use of the engine, nor on whether or not SQ42 is a separate project. It will hinge on the spirit and intent of the GLA. The courts are used to seeing these types of disputes all the time, and when the wording is ambiguous or confusing, the judges always tend to defer to spirit and intent.

As per the GLA, SQ42 was never agreed to be a separate title. It was defined as being a feature of the "GAME" (see 1.6 & Exhibit 2). That's all the court is going to look at. What is in the preamble isn't important, in much the same way that Space Citizen is the name in the preamble, but Star Citizen is what is defined in the definition of "GAME".

After the GLA was signed, modules like Star Marine, Arena Commander, ArcCorp, Hangar were never planned to be separate "features" or they too would have been listed. They came about as per the increase in scope of the project, and the way they later decided to develop those parts separately and as "features" of Star Citizen.

The GLA is going with the spirit and intent of the original campaign which talked about a persistent universe (Star Citizen) and space combat (Squadron 42) features of a single "GAME" that was pitched. This is what makes SQ42 a feature of that game, just like the others. If they decided to sell Star Marine separately, even though it would launch from the same launcher as Star Citizen, that would be considered a breach of the GLA. They are only allowed to sell a single collective set called the "GAME" which includes Star Citizen, Squadron 42, and server mods. Neither Squadron 42, nor the server mods, were described as being the primary component like Star Citizen. They are features of the "GAME".

In my opinion, all of Crytek's causes of action have some merit, and for that reason, the motion to dismiss is going to be dismantled by the judge, and the case going to be set for trial shortly thereafter, if not in the same ruling. This will give Crytek the ability to start depositions and discovery, as this is a fast track case filing.

The judge may decide not to give an opinion ruling on the "exclusivity" issue because there may be issues of intent which can only be revealed and explained during discovery and deposition. I say this because section 2.1.2 isn't as ambiguous (I believe the wording requires that CIG exclusively use CryEngine for the "GAME") as people think that it is. And that's why cases go to appeals, and in some cases all the way to the SCOTUS. To me, even 2.1.2 is less important than 2.4 because without the termination (see 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) even if CIG decided to switch engines, it could be said that they breached the GLA by that section alone. Plus they already went on the record admitting that they switched to a competing (there is no argument that any engine other than CryEngine could be considered as a competing engine) game engine, Lumberyard. So even if the judge ruled that CIG were not required to exclusively use CryEngine in the "GAME", it doesn't mean that they can then ignore the other conditions of the GLA - which remains in full force and effect, as per the strict termination conditions.

Whether the case goes to trial or is settled, depends on the ruling of the motion to dismiss. I don't see how CIG would take this all the way to a jury because any ruling against them for any of the causes of action, can lead to millions of Dollars in damages and attorney fees. So it would make sense for them to settle if they can. The down side of that is, settling a case from a position of weakness, and against a firm like Skadden, is not the best position to be in. Plus their liability insurance company is likely to deny their claims if there is finding that they intentionally breached any part of the GLA. And that could make things worse for them in terms of how much they can settle the matter for. Plus, most business liability insurances, have cap limits.

Breetai posted:

The scene where the marketing guru explains his view on economics to Caesar would fit perfectly.

Breetai posted:

Yes, please!

Virtual Captain posted:

Hey it looks like OldSchoolCmdr is posting again. All day it seems.

quote:

OldSchoolCmdr posted:

There are 4 specific and highly damaging causes of action in this complaint.

From my reading of the complaint and the response, I can safely say that even though CIG never responded to two of them - which itself are sufficient grounds for the motion to dismiss to be denied - CIG isn't likely to prevail on any of them if this goes to a jury.

It doesn't matter if CIG were to use CryEngine exclusively or not, the crux of the matter is that the GLA was never terminated, and thus, all its conditions and warranties, remain in full force and effect. What remains then are how many of the conditions were breached, and what damages can be awarded for each breach. The most damaging breach would be IP infringement if it is found that SQ42 was sold as a separate title, as it's not covered as such in the GLA. This is the same as Microsoft giving a corp 10 enterprise licenses for Windows Server, then through an audit find that they have 15 copies installed. Each of the 5 excess copies is an infringement that is subject to fees and costs.

Even if CIG owns a license they decided not to use, it doesn't release them from the other obligations in the GLA. Those being the other causes of action such as providing code changes, displaying the Crytek logo, developing more than one title etc.

The case will not just hinge on the disputed exclusivity of their use of the engine, nor on whether or not SQ42 is a separate project. It will hinge on the spirit and intent of the GLA. The courts are used to seeing these types of disputes all the time, and when the wording is ambiguous or confusing, the judges always tend to defer to spirit and intent.

As per the GLA, SQ42 was never agreed to be a separate title. It was defined as being a feature of the "GAME" (see 1.6 & Exhibit 2). That's all the court is going to look at. What is in the preamble isn't important, in much the same way that Space Citizen is the name in the preamble, but Star Citizen is what is defined in the definition of "GAME".

After the GLA was signed, modules like Star Marine, Arena Commander, ArcCorp, Hangar were never planned to be separate "features" or they too would have been listed. They came about as per the increase in scope of the project, and the way they later decided to develop those parts separately and as "features" of Star Citizen.

The GLA is going with the spirit and intent of the original campaign which talked about a persistent universe (Star Citizen) and space combat (Squadron 42) features of a single "GAME" that was pitched. This is what makes SQ42 a feature of that game, just like the others. If they decided to sell Star Marine separately, even though it would launch from the same launcher as Star Citizen, that would be considered a breach of the GLA. They are only allowed to sell a single collective set called the "GAME" which includes Star Citizen, Squadron 42, and server mods. Neither Squadron 42, nor the server mods, were described as being the primary component like Star Citizen. They are features of the "GAME".

In my opinion, all of Crytek's causes of action have some merit, and for that reason, the motion to dismiss is going to be dismantled by the judge, and the case going to be set for trial shortly thereafter, if not in the same ruling. This will give Crytek the ability to start depositions and discovery, as this is a fast track case filing.

The judge may decide not to give an opinion ruling on the "exclusivity" issue because there may be issues of intent which can only be revealed and explained during discovery and deposition. I say this because section 2.1.2 isn't as ambiguous (I believe the wording requires that CIG exclusively use CryEngine for the "GAME") as people think that it is. And that's why cases go to appeals, and in some cases all the way to the SCOTUS. To me, even 2.1.2 is less important than 2.4 because without the termination (see 8.1, 8.2, 8.3) even if CIG decided to switch engines, it could be said that they breached the GLA by that section alone. Plus they already went on the record admitting that they switched to a competing (there is no argument that any engine other than CryEngine could be considered as a competing engine) game engine, Lumberyard. So even if the judge ruled that CIG were not required to exclusively use CryEngine in the "GAME", it doesn't mean that they can then ignore the other conditions of the GLA - which remains in full force and effect, as per the strict termination conditions.

Whether the case goes to trial or is settled, depends on the ruling of the motion to dismiss. I don't see how CIG would take this all the way to a jury because any ruling against them for any of the causes of action, can lead to millions of Dollars in damages and attorney fees. So it would make sense for them to settle if they can. The down side of that is, settling a case from a position of weakness, and against a firm like Skadden, is not the best position to be in. Plus their liability insurance company is likely to deny their claims if there is finding that they intentionally breached any part of the GLA. And that could make things worse for them in terms of how much they can settle the matter for. Plus, most business liability insurances, have cap limits.

Galarox posted:

Wow! Deep cover goon go troll this guy! By agreeing with: "The only valid criticism of SC is that it is too ambitious" and "We can't say the game will fail, nor can we say it will be a success"
(I'm not on or I would)

reignofevil posted:

I've never even glanced in the direction of star citizen and I'm gonna go ahead and guess the delta patcher is not actually in.

Galarox posted:

trucutru posted:

You obviously are not on reddit, 'cuz that's not

Galarox posted:

Cue Commandos... Derek! gently caress of Derek with your hate boner!

(we really need a smilie for hate boner btw)

trucutru posted:

It's actually in! it's also something you can buy off-the-shelf to include in your game for cheap.

Breetai posted:

Asterix was loving amazing, and lol @ how little you had to change it.

Tippis posted:

Galarox posted:

lol. Well I said I wasn't didn't I? I dont touch that poop - the nearest I get is Mirificus, Dementropy et al's screen caps

Still the call to a deep cover goon still stands

Dementropy posted: