|
So many ships. So many ships that you can buy now with real money. And then dream about maybe flying them in a proper game a decade later.
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
thatguy posted:Time to repost all the best things from the last thread. Just don't let the "Sandi is now mad and showing her true colors" gif be lost in the archive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
I'd find the project way more interesting, and you know, actually feasible within a reasonable timeframe if their updates were "we cheated to achieve this, using this (clever) way, and that actually means better performance, or smoother controls or whatever". I bet part of their development problems come from trying to constantly find a balance between Chris vision of fidelity and complexity with the practical solutions that actually work and should be more than ok for the game. But you know, if you have to deal with a person in a managerial position yelling "but (last night) I dreamt it this way, make it so!" in your ear, then you end up with modules that don't fit together and planets of 1 terrabyte in size each.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
They are already playing the This explains so much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Unfunny Poster posted:I have been completely out of the loop with this game. Wasn't Squadron 42 promised to be released before the end of the year? Especially by the diehard defenders who said it was all but guaranteed? Yes, but then they failed to even show anything from it during their CitizenCon in November (although they promised to show something, and allegedly they were preparing something). They did show powerpoint slides that revealed that they have about nothing actually done for it and everything is pending. Now, it is TBD (and people assume it's going to be next year, but only the prelude, because apparently, gently caress, this garbage that is still unsure to be made, (let alone be successful) has already planned DLC and episodes and sequels.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
He is going to. With the full refund.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Lladre posted:When's their Holiday Event? This Friday I think. So soon. Although I am too bored to verify it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Has the Star Citizen twitter account tweeted "RedTube" or similar yet, or this level of (OUYA team) incompetence has not been matched?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Give it a few months and then the animated gif (guh-if) comprised of all their useless Gannt chart changes will work perfectly as a beat visualizer alongside "oops I did it again".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:because gently caress why not 1. Chris says "paaaarp" at least once during his garbled speech 2. The 2.6 is not ready for public, but they promise release in a few days (within the year). They announce a 2.6.1 build (to patch the 2.6 mess) before the 3.0, in 2017. 3. They have to reboot the server to play another Star Marine session. 4. SQ42 new trailer with "coming in 2017" in the final frames. Chat goes mental. 5. Ship sale. Another promo video with good looking footage that is nothing like anyone is playing or experiencing in the current builds. I'd very much like them to announce console versions and watch the chat devour itself. And they could announce that 3.0 is now internally (or publicly) tagged as "beta", but it's probably too early to play that bait card.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Missed a lot of it already, and don't really want to watch it anyway but, from the newsletter...quote:After all the effort we expended for CitizenCon, we didn’t want to spend additional developer time polishing intermediate solutions if it wasn’t going towards the final product. LOL. Are they acknowledging that in-between cons they are considering spending time on polishing intermediate solutions that aren't going towards the final product (albeit this time they chose not to) -- which is exactly what they seemed to be doing so far (see 3.0 jesus build preview). gently caress this lovely company. I hope they burn fast.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Nothing like yet another spectacular failure from CIG to liven up the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
MedicineHut posted:Erris seems to be taking it really well Did he actually still believe that 3.0 was happening in 2016? Also lol at his pessimistic estimate about 2017. cause that ain't happening either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
A Neurotic Corncob posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5it20l/today_was_an_amazing_day/ On the upside, these dumb people sticking with the project and finding reasons to put more of their money in it, make it easier for the others to get a refund. At least Crobbers tried! I am a family man and support Crobbers dreams because uhm hang on my wife is saying something to me.... divorce!?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
AbstractNapper posted:1. Chris says "paaaarp" at least once during his garbled speech 2. Is half right. And it seems that they will be patching this pile they delivered to PTU for a long time 3. Not sure. But it seems it might be correct. The PTU 2.6 needs the clients to be restarted constantly and there a server problems, so lol. 4. Failed (really CIG? you couldn't even manage to do your marketing properly?) 5. Probably right? I skipped 95% of the stream but this was the most sure bet. And they now (a minute before the live stream) issue a (probably not all true) statement that they decided to not focus effort on some
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
AP posted:I think an engine change is the only trick they have left to play, it might buy another year or two. - Engine change - Consoles Release - VR support All of the above are possible "cards" to play, all of them will set them back and it will be impossible to recover, considering that they will all cause a backlash from their community. But I mean this is the SC community so who knows how they will spin it to justify looking at their jpgs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Not a complete mystery. The subscriber 2.6 release was in panic mode. No one cared if it broke the 2.5 at that time. Tax (?) 
AbstractNapper fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Dec 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Risc1911 posted:
To be fair it is inefficient and stupid, but they should totally do that and other "fidelity" features just so that terrible sluggish outcome will be all the more hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Is there actually a website with a full list of promised SC features? I feel like it's something someone must have put together by this point. There's this spreadsheet https://m.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fvcbd/i_made_a_spread_sheet_detailing_every_stretch/ No idea how comprehensive that is (it probably doesn't include lots of stuff), but maybe it is still something to use for reference.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Tijuana Bibliophile posted:Things you can do for $560: And definitely don't do that. SteamOS has lots of issues (wrt installation, updating, sound configuration, bugs), GPU drivers for Linux are still poo poo (AMDs' are probably the worst), and Linux support is an afterthought (or not considered at all) for too many games. Also features like in-home streaming probably still don't work 100% ok with Linux hosts
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
A. Beaverhausen posted:$10 for a manual? Wooow Another low for CIG. And I realise now that I've missed the news about an engine switch (?) too? Hahahah. oh this is just excellent. I guess development really starts in 2017, then.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
So, if the transition was ongoing during the year (or the last few months), it could be that their jesus 3.0 promised build was always intented to be worked on Lumberyard. Of course the GamesCom demo was fake, but the plans were to develop it on the new engine, hence all the gaming-is-saved features. And maybe the transition for SQ4 is still ongoing (and introducing hard to overcome difficulties as the leaked unusable motion capture data), which is why they show nothing of it. Because they don't want to show stuff with their old engine anymore. At this point they are resetting most of their custom work or else they have broken stuff on the new engine. And the broken, half baked 2.6 is supposedly running on Lumberyard, which is probably why 2.5 broke the minute they released 2.6 builds to PTU... There is ofcourse NO WAY the two engines are as compatible as the claim to be. That is the common bullshit they feed you in this type of situation, while their offices are actually on fire. Yes, it is a smart move to switch to a better engine (with console support and VR support... no idea about the 64bit fidelity dreams). Early in development. Not this late. This has written development hell and disaster all over it. However, if Citizens manage to justify the ongoing press shitstorm and be ok with it, it will buy time for CIG. I see no positive logical outcome, but this is a proper cult we are talking about, so it could always go that way...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Press release says that 2.6 already is using AWS. They are definitely still fighting with transition issues (albeit they are not admitting it), since 2.6 still have many issues. But I wonder if part of what they claim to have been a smooth transition is that the "Star Engine" had gently caress all of working game code of their own, so the "port process" was dropping all that poo poo in a heartbeat and putting their models and animations to Amazon's engine. The focus is marketing ships with videos and building fake demos anyway, so the transition there is even less painfull.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 11:27
|
|
|
It's amazing how this project hits every single mark that should be a red flag and continues to do so for years. And yet people still back this
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
So how long until they announce the console versions? And that press release is marketing 101. Talking about the switch, but in broad strokes and vaguely enough so that either their whales will fill in the blanks with a narrative of their own (which currently is "look we have two forks of the same engine, forks work like this: they took their custom stuff and pasted in the other fork and all worked fine") or there will be a major negative backlash during the holidays and they will deal with it when they get back (with more, but still measured, information). But bottom line seems to be, their previous custom engine was a loving mess and they couldn't go on seriously considering integration and viable product with that. So they switched to a less hosed fork with Amazon actively supporting it hoping for better results (which they will get, but definitely not the "dream"-level features)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Amarcarts posted:I bet what was originally planned is that 2.6 was supposed to be the last StarEngine release and 3.0 in 2017 was originally going to be the big switch and they were hoping it wouldn't be a big deal because "Wow! Look at all this planetary stuff!". Probably what happened though is they just flat out could not get Star Marine working with StarEngine and they decided it would be a worse headline to delay Star Marine to next year than to bite the bullet and tell everyone they had to move to a different engine. This. All of it. Is the most plausible scenario to me too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Yeah, there are few plausible scenarios about how the engine switch really went or what its current progress status is (partially complete, still win), and none of those is favoring CIG 's narrative. They were either lying about their customizations and their demos were fake (highly likely), or switched to the base of the ly fork, only to acquire the license (not very likely, and has many issues if they want to exploit features of ly). Either way they are hosed, and 2017 should be a very interesting year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
MilesK posted:They're still adding stretch goals. What the hell was mega map? edit: And was it in their lovely open roadmap/ Gantt charts?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Daztek posted:https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/5637904/#Comment_5637904 Holy poo poo. hahahah! Nice find. I'd expect that it doesn't take long for anyone to spot inconsistencies in their full of holes, contradictions and marketing/nonsensical-talk narrative, but it still is admirable that someone will take the bullet and spend time going through that pile of paaarp garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
So the New features of LY proper (fork off 3.8.x whatever) are not added and probably have not even been evaluated if they are worth adding or how much of a nightmare merging to that would be. Does that sound pointless to anyone else, too? Or just me then? I think this explanation gets better and better. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943894&viewfull=1#post4943894 AbstractNapper fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
I think the guy who said they just switched by getting the license.txt file for LY was probably the one who got closer (or spot on) to what has happened. Ofcourse they could have spend two days on making their 4 years of changes on the CE 3.7 fork into a patch and then applying it to the CE 3.7 again for the lulz.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Sorry in advance for this rant, I just wanted to make it clear as clear why there are problems with CIGs/Parrys "explanation". Please point out mistakes or confusions/omissions. They changed nothing with the switch. Their custom code remained intact. How? They did not switch to LY proper. The LY fork is something still foreign to them and way off if they ever decide to merge with it. What they did was "switch" to the 3.7 "history point" of LY, which is identical to CryEngine's 3.7 snapshot and is the point where StarEngine was forked out off. And they say "switch", but this amounts to a whole lot of nothing at this stage. Because it's pointless on its own (you literally do nothing --maybe a copy of a license and readme files-- and voila you've switched) and not an actual transition to anything different. They had gained nothing out of the LY features, but maybe the license and the "right" to say they are on "LY" now... (which I don't think they can technically say that --but they can "sell" it as such apparently). And they could do that sort of "switch" because, according to Ben, Amazon's license of the CryEngine is for source code that goes further back into the past of CryEngine than the 3.8.x point, where Amazon forked off and made their adjustments/ customizations. So it does include the 3.7 where they "switched". What Parry's rough paint drawing shows is Star Engine remaining still forked off at the same point (no merging back with LY proper) and *essentially* in its own former branch, completely unaffected from the "switch". The only thing changing in the two drawings is the color of the "base" line which in the "before" is the CryEngine code, and in the after it is still the exact same CryEngine code (until LY's fork) now labeled "LumberYard legacy code or something". Of course, It's unclear whether this circlejeck (possible but pointless) switch is what actually happened or what Barry thinks (or explained in his own mind to keep it sane) has happened. I sort of tend to believe him, because it matches the whole image of CIG being incompetent and selling this zero-sum switch as a new cooperation with Amazon that was "like for like" (no it wasn't). AbstractNapper fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:
It does account for it. It means they changed nothing to their custom code to accommodate any merge, and thus got nothing from the proper Lumberyard code. They have their 50% customization or whatever they claim (provided that is true, which who knows?). And they are still "behind" the 3.8 point that LY forker from. Exactly as much "behind" it as they were before. Iglocska posted:Seriously, that graph shows a gross misunderstanding of how git works.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Chalks posted:I'm glad someone said this because I keep looking at this graph and I have no idea what it is trying to illustrate. The first image shows LY branching from 3.8 and SC branching from 3.7. The second image shows exactly the same thing, except with the trunk coloured in red for some reason, implying that Cryengine branched from LY instead of the other way around, but in such a way that makes literally no difference to anything. https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/259596-The-Star-Citizen-Thread-v5?p=4943960&viewfull=1#post4943960 Basically, second image shows the trunk red (but it's the same trunk as the first image) because it is now let's say labeled as LumberYard code, even though it is identical to the CryEngine "trunk" up to the point that LY forks off (3.8.x). (Ben or some other guy call it "LumberYard legacy code" up to the point of the fork off CE 3.8, where LumberYard proper begins). SC remains forked off the previous point (3.7) as it was originally. No actual merge has occurred. But they are now in "LumberYard" because Amazon has a license that gives them access to the CryEngine source code "history versions" before 3.8 (3.8 being the point where they forked off from and did their own thing); so basically SC can now say its a fork off LumberYard "legacy code" (ie Cryengine 3.7 as it always were) or has switched to LumberYard (marketing speak mainly). AbstractNapper fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Yes, all the work to merge any features from Lumberyard or to merge with Lumberyard proper is not done, and noone knows if they will ever do it. I am guessing they will at least attempt it at some point and face the actual nightmare that everyone here, and also Parry expects.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Mr.PayDay posted:And they managed the effort of no merge in only 2 days. CIG keep their level of excellence in progression in every aspect of this project. I mean you know most of the "switch" work would have to be editing that splash screen to include the LumberYard logo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Mr Fronts posted:Please, allow me. Quoting this, because it needs more appreciation. Spot on, mate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
XK posted:If the switch to Lumberyard was literally them renaming where they branched from, and changing some legalese files in the release, even I will be shocked. That would just be totally impressive. It's to laugh at for sure, although I don't think many will get the hilarity of it. Yet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Iglocska posted:If that's the case, what took them 2 days?...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
A woman, called Cate, decides to have a plastic surgery on her... face. This decision is made on 03/07. She takes a picture of herself, that same day, and starts photo-shopping it for a month, saving her work in a file named "SE.parp", trying to visualize how awesome her new face will look. She has no real skills nor any experience with plastic surgery and the result looks awful. A month later, at 03/08 she has the surgery and looks quite different. From both what she looked before and what she had photo-shopped. The woman changes her name to Lucy, that very day. "SE.parp" is still a botched photoshop of an old Lucy/Cate photo, but shows nothing of how Lucy looks, it has none of her new features. It is however an edited photo of Lucy. Is my terrible allegory of what happened with the "switch to Lumberyard".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:55
|
|