|
  
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Kinda amazed that Star Citizen still offers no loot boxes/surprise mechanics. Although, one could argue that the whole development is a surprise mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
DigitalPenny posted:I love the way they explain the 32 v 64 bit precision. You can see the jankiness clearly as you move away from zero. Overly simple but clear That does not sound right. 500 million Km is hardly the limit of a 64b precision positioning engine. If I am not mistaken Elite Dangerous has been using the 64b maths for their 1:1 scale systems without major issues. For reference the solar system is around 290 billion km in diameter. And that does not even count the actual in game position of the Voyager probes well outside the limits of that diameter. The CIG 64b "engine" is hosed up from the ground up. MedicineHut fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Oct 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
DigitalPenny posted:It's true that using 64 bit would allow you to take your map size in the engine from like 32km up to like 3 or 4 million KMs. Its massive increase in precision. Isn't that too small of an increase? Where do the extra bits get lost? If we assume mm precision, we should go from 3.2e+7 mm to the same, squared (disregarding it should be a bit more, because any possible calculating overhead from 32-bit precision should already be there and you'd use the new 32 bits (almost?) purely to increase precision), which amounts to 1.024e+15 mm, meaning some thousand of millions kms (avoiding word billion because weird math stuff at that point). Sure, it's still not exactly "bingo" thing, but I doubt they'd have to scale down in that case. Unless they are doing pixel precision at all points (1 mm is few pixels, depending on fidelity even many pixels), but that'd be just stupid, right? Right? Also how come other engines (E:D's Cobra, Space Engine) can simulate these distances (E:D can simulate being 2 thousands of millions kms away from main star at Hutton Orbital, and you can go even further, should you wish to - and you don't clip through Hutton Orbital's landing pad) and SC cannot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
Tarquinn posted:Kinda amazed that Star Citizen still offers no loot boxes/surprise mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
Is this what stocholm syndrome looks like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
Maybe I don't understand game development like your average citizen, but if I was doing flying around in solar system, I would never consider placing center of the world inside a star and call it a day. Instead that would be like topmost layer. So position of planet would be written in that coordinate system, and anything anywhere near planet would be in planet's coordinate system (with center inside of planet). If you'd get anywhere near a station orbiting that planet, you would be in station's coordinate system. So you don't need to position commando's gun 16 bajillion kilometers away from sun and worry about precision there. I would hazard a guess that any sane game would use system like this. I guess even star citizen works somewhat similar that when you're walking around space station you aren't in the star's coordinate system
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
commando in tophat posted:Maybe I don't understand game development like your average citizen, but if I was doing flying around in solar system, I would never consider placing center of the world inside a star and call it a day. Instead that would be like topmost layer. So position of planet would be written in that coordinate system, and anything anywhere near planet would be in planet's coordinate system (with center inside of planet). If you'd get anywhere near a station orbiting that planet, you would be in station's coordinate system. Shifting centers are tricky in other ways. Theoretically doable in singleplayer games (but even there I'd rather avoid it), but in multiplayer games you wouldn't get any benefit at all. The pros lie in placing the stuff relatively close to the star, so the only possibly broken stuff is far away, where almost nobody goes (or it takes hours of flight through nothing, see NMS). Now imagine you took this point with player billions of kms away, then a new player jumps into the system to the star and is welcome by twitching star and planets going out of orbit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Sanya Juutilainen posted:Also how come other engines (E:D's Cobra, Space Engine) can simulate these distances (E:D can simulate being 2 thousands of millions kms away from main star at Hutton Orbital, and you can go even further, should you wish to - and you don't clip through Hutton Orbital's landing pad) and SC cannot? Simple answer: They don't. ED, for example, uses heavy instancing and scaling tricks to create the illusion of scale. When you are in the "system" scale, i.e. puttering around a system in FSD, you're not in the same coordinate system that you're in when flying around in "real space". This is the sort of trick that sensible game developers will naturally use when they are actually trying to make a playable game and aren't hampered by grandiose proclamations delivered from on high about how there shall be no instancing. There are also other approaches you can take, like for example treating the current camera or the current player position as the origin of the coordinate system; this will keep everything the player will be able to see in the zone of highest precision forever. In short, there's a few solutions to the problem of how to make huge levels work well, none of which CIG chose to use because of .... well, let's call them management issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
The_E posted:(...)When you are in the "system" scale, i.e. puttering around a system in FSD, you're not in the same coordinate system that you're in when flying around in "real space".(...) Except you are, which players were able to test because of a bug that allowed for thruster engineering stacking, leading to supercruise speeds in normal space: (watch the planet on the right) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UabxBGpz648 The instancing is there to cover loading assets and instancing multiplayer (i.e. not run at 20 FPS like SC), but I believe the coordinate system is universal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:It's not really surprising anymore. It's just delay after delay, bugs after bugs and so on. Only surprising bit would be a sudden release of a fully functional game with most promised features included. I don’t know. I am surprised all the time what they manage to break in their tech demo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
iospace posted:So I have a question: since funding per backer is increasing, which means more backers are starting with higher pledges or whales are shoveling more in. Sanya Juutilainen posted:Here you go, someone tracks it over the years (though it's not number of backers, you'll have to estimate there from number of RSI accounts): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207 These stats are always wild every time I look at them, but Sanya is right, we don't have an accurate picture of how many backers there are. We tend to estimate that backers equal about roughly half the number of accounts, based on that Turbulent interview from 2015(?) but we have no way of knowing. It seems like the most likely answer for why the average pledge is increasing is that they have pretty much sold Star Citizen and Squadron to all the people who are going to buy it. Assuming that most new purchasers pick up a starter pack, if those new purchasers drop of the average pledge is going to jump pretty drastically because the only people left buying things are going to be the whales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
It's easy. When Ci
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Tarquinn posted:Kinda amazed that Star Citizen still offers no loot boxes The roadmap is the loot box. You'll never know what you get for your investment in current development. You could also roll a D6 whenever a SciFi movie comes out. 1-2 Chris is on holidays and will only hear about it from twitter, so he'll only demand some changes to SC. 3-4 Chris sees the film, and demands major changes in SC because he just had this brand new idea, 5-6 he rides into the office in the refactor-mobile, screaming "halt all development, I have this GRAND NEW AAA idea".
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Sanya Juutilainen posted:Shifting centers are tricky in other ways. Theoretically doable in singleplayer games (but even there I'd rather avoid it), but in multiplayer games you wouldn't get any benefit at all. The pros lie in placing the stuff relatively close to the star, so the only possibly broken stuff is far away, where almost nobody goes (or it takes hours of flight through nothing, see NMS). Now imagine you took this point with player billions of kms away, then a new player jumps into the system to the star and is welcome by twitching star and planets going out of orbit. I'm not talking about shifting one true center of the universe, but about having multiple centers for multiple "maps". E.g. there is a separate "map" for each planet, and each has it's own center. When you get near a planet, you are teleported to that map. Each map is has some location relative to the star. When you are in planet's map, your commando is in that map's coordinate system, and you only use star's coordinate system to draw markers for other distant planets or whatever. If you are inside a ship, it can be it's own map, and you need to somehow solve how to render things outside of windows (someone posted here not so long ago how it is done in warframe). Singleplayer or multiplayer doesn't affect this, it is only about moving players between coordinate systems (e.g. switching them from one map to another). Some additional trickery is required for that changing to not look like players are just vanishing when leaving planet, but you have $300m dollars so that shouldn't be problem to figure out
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
Sanya Juutilainen posted:Except you are, which players were able to test because of a bug that allowed for thruster engineering stacking, leading to supercruise speeds in normal space: Braben (that filthy liar) probably hired some magic Germans and had them build that system without telling anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
Lladre posted:It's easy. That occured to me, something like: /* We were supposed to introduce 64-bit precision here, but it's too tough */ (actual 32-bit precision code here)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
commando in tophat posted:I'm not talking about shifting one true center of the universe, but about having multiple centers for multiple "maps". E.g. there is a separate "map" for each planet, and each has it's own center. When you get near a planet, you are teleported to that map. Each map is has some location relative to the star. When you are in planet's map, your commando is in that map's coordinate system, and you only use star's coordinate system to draw markers for other distant planets or whatever. If you are inside a ship, it can be it's own map, and you need to somehow solve how to render things outside of windows (someone posted here not so long ago how it is done in warframe). I see, that could be doable (and at many places it already is, I bet). I don't think it's E:D's approach, but it could work for SC - though I suspect it already is working there for some point (considering the gravity works separately for each "map", i.e. station, ship, space), but it's just broken, maybe by tying it / recalculating it to the global coordinates for fidelity, thus losing all its advantages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
Sanya Juutilainen posted:Except you are, which players were able to test because of a bug that allowed for thruster engineering stacking, leading to supercruise speeds in normal space: I was honestly just speculating based on what I think is a sensible solution to the problem of making interplanetary scale things work. If FDEV has chosen a different solution, more power to them (given that it seems to work acceptably well).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
Sanya Juutilainen posted:Except you are, which players were able to test because of a bug that allowed for thruster engineering stacking, leading to supercruise speeds in normal space: Is this like in Eve Online, where you can grow a grid to an insane number by just flying with thrusters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
Beet Wagon posted:These stats are always wild every time I look at them, but Sanya is right, we don't have an accurate picture of how many backers there are. We tend to estimate that backers equal about roughly half the number of accounts, based on that Turbulent interview from 2015(?) but we have no way of knowing. It seems like the most likely answer for why the average pledge is increasing is that they have pretty much sold Star Citizen and Squadron to all the people who are going to buy it. Assuming that most new purchasers pick up a starter pack, if those new purchasers drop of the average pledge is going to jump pretty drastically because the only people left buying things are going to be the whales. No you see when the game releases they will stop selling ships.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
In any case E:D has to be "cheating" 'cuz 64 bit is just not enough for cm precision on systems as big as the ones they have. The sensible solution is to use a system wide frame of reference for your location in space and a more precise one for ships/asteroids/interactables that are close to you. SC is the only project that pretends to be dumb enough not to cheat. I mean, they sure are dumb as gently caress, but they do cheat. (probably don't like to tell Chris about it tho)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BoredGamerUK/status/1186641467806244864
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
DigitalPenny posted:I love the way they explain the 32 v 64 bit precision. You can see the jankiness clearly as you move away from zero. Overly simple but clear Once again you miss Croberts greatness! This is no simple space simulator this is a Quantum Space Simulator! He is bravely building a world constrained by the perceived insanity of quantum mechanics and all of the "jankiness" is simply our inability to comprehend quantum at its most basic states! He is giving us the greatest, most hardcore game ever! We aren't paying for the game we are paying to be the first in Quantum Space!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
It's gone already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
FUD, he clearly said Squadron 54 was releasing next year
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Space games were one of the first genres because you didn't need to commit storage to mapping it. You just stored points of interest, everything else was void. You tracked the ship's coordinates and loaded in points of interest when you were close enough. BAM - space game you can fit on a floppy disk. Enter Chris Roberts, "game developer," who is trying to actually map space itself. Every point in space exists in a physical map - even the huge void between points of interest is actually in the loving map. Incredibly pointless and staggeringly limiting. It's sad to think how far this project could have come had it been headed by literally anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:FUD, he clearly said Squadron 54 was releasing next year 1,2857.00 times better than Squadron 42. Hype. Raffle!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:
 this mess had been more entertaining than any game, even Dote up a Cat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Quavers posted:
certified yikes moment
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:39
|
|
Hey! Derek Smart was right (after I was)! 
|
people absolutely will click on and watch that video
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Scruffpuff posted:Space games were one of the first genres because you didn't need to commit storage to mapping it. You just stored points of interest, everything else was void. You tracked the ship's coordinates and loaded in points of interest when you were close enough. BAM - space game you can fit on a floppy disk. if i knew that the void wasn't actually mapped that'd ruin my immersion. maybe this is just not the game for you, Hater.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Inacio posted:people absolutely will click on and watch that video #squadron56
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
peter gabriel posted:#squadron56 Answer the Call +14™
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Lol I love that Mark Hamill's oblivious comment is sending the fanboys into a frenzy of "OMG MARK HAMILL SAID IT'S COMING OUT NEXT YEAR!!!". He doesn't know dudes, he just did a voice in a game and thinks that's neat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
CIG's current being extremely generous estimate, is that the beta test for Squadron 42 will be sometime in 2020. There's very little reason to believe this will happen though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
"Mark, any comment on Squadron 42?" "Oh yeah, that game - didn't that come out a couple of years ago?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:CIG's current being extremely generous estimate, is that the beta test for Squadron 42 will be sometime in 2020. There's very little reason to believe this will happen though. It's so obvious that's not happening that even the people in the SC Subreddit aren't kidding themselves about it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
Mozi posted:"Mark, any comment on Squadron 42?" As someone mentioned, he probably expects some royalties from the game, so he should be tracking it. The plot, name and lore, though, are so derivative, he probably forgot what it's about already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
JugbandDude posted:As someone mentioned, he probably expects some royalties from the game, so he should be tracking it. He has people for that, and it's not like it's going to make a splash in the Star Wars money pool. He got the name of the game wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2019 16:14
|
|
