******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******

They've yet to hit a target date without removing proposed content. That is a criticism btw as they should by now have a better handle on how long they need and build in some slack. Hope I'm wrong though!
 
They've yet to hit a target date without removing proposed content. That is a criticism btw as they should by now have a better handle on how long they need and build in some slack. Hope I'm wrong though!

Yeah thats true, it has already been delayed by one week, only this time its because they added content.

We will know in 3 days :)
 
The system they use to create the report dates though are automatic as different teams feed in their target dates direct and it populates the dates accordingly. This also works in that it relies on others also hitting targets so if one of them moves then often others around them move.

There is also not really a more accurate way to give dates, they talk to their teams, the teams approximate based on what they know at the time and then give those as the estimates.

I don't think I have ever seen a development team (for software or design) hit a target date without removing/changing the proposed content. There are always factors that are unknown, there are always parts that change due to people having ideas and move their own scope even when not asked.

There really is no point in criticising the team for providing their target dates for completing features. Ubisoft, Rockstar, 2K Games, Bungie, 4A Games, Activision have all their own internal targets similar to what we are seeing as the targets for CIG and I am aware of the amount of times they have missed targets even when it's only an expansion on an already existing engine & franchise.
 
There is always a point in criticising targets being missed especially when it happens repeatedly. This isn't a final release date these are in some cases minor features which we've been waiting a very long time to even get to the alpha test stage. That isn't a complaint, just an observation but I'd hate to think we weren't allowed to say "damn guys, get the dates a bit more accurate on attempt number 4 please". They can easily build in slippage, but the project has to start hitting some fluffy deadlines at some point.
 
As far as Star Citizen goes they need to settle on a size and scope.

Yes making improvements to what you are doing during development is normal but i think CiG do take that to its most extreme and i do think that has taken its toll on having any actual content ready, after some years now....

3.0 is actually the first bricks laid on the foundations, lets hope they are done missing on and on and on.... with those foundations.
 
There is always a point in criticising targets being missed especially when it happens repeatedly. This isn't a final release date these are in some cases minor features which we've been waiting a very long time to even get to the alpha test stage. That isn't a complaint, just an observation but I'd hate to think we weren't allowed to say "damn guys, get the dates a bit more accurate on attempt number 4 please". They can easily build in slippage, but the project has to start hitting some fluffy deadlines at some point.

Your missing the point of them being targets, not deadlines. The targets are and will always be optimistic as they are designed not to have any slippage in them. They are the date expected should everything be working 100% all the time.

The targets set by software companies I have worked with for instance always assume 100% output from all the team, don't take into account, sickness of members of staff, holidays, delays waiting on 3rd parties, change of scope. Those are all non factors in the target systems that as far as I am aware almost every company uses.

These are internal targets that they are wishing for. They will never hit those target dates as a whole if you take it as 3.0. However if you split up each section then you will see they are hitting smaller team targets and missing others. There is no way this will change to the point that they will release 3.0 sized updates on target dates.

Now when they start doing smaller updates with 3.1 or 3.2 those dates should be more accurate as they have relative less content and thus less likely for creep to set in with what will be done unless they change scope of whats in those updates as a whole.

This is why I don't believe any criticism can be given and why we should never expect them to hit these dates. The only reason we are seeing them in the first place is people wanted to see what progress was happening behind the development.

If the patcher is updated as expected it could be that we then have things a lot more as 3.1.1, 3.1.2 being dropped on the odd week, month or similar with much more minor updates/bug fixes ect and that is what will be hit on time much more often because they are going to be single team or single item/bug updates and so we may not even see them feature in the main schedule but they could be on a much more finite schedule.
 
hello all iv just got the game and when i come to download it, it says its gonna take weeks to download is this normal?

Depends on your internet speed and connection. I had an issue a few times so just restarted the installer. However generally once it gets going it maxes out my connection and downloads in about an hour.
 
Your missing the point of them being targets, not deadlines. The targets are and will always be optimistic as they are designed not to have any slippage in them. They are the date expected should everything be working 100% all the time.

The targets set by software companies I have worked with for instance always assume 100% output from all the team, don't take into account, sickness of members of staff, holidays, delays waiting on 3rd parties, change of scope. Those are all non factors in the target systems that as far as I am aware almost every company uses.

These are internal targets that they are wishing for. They will never hit those target dates as a whole if you take it as 3.0. However if you split up each section then you will see they are hitting smaller team targets and missing others. There is no way this will change to the point that they will release 3.0 sized updates on target dates.

Now when they start doing smaller updates with 3.1 or 3.2 those dates should be more accurate as they have relative less content and thus less likely for creep to set in with what will be done unless they change scope of whats in those updates as a whole.

This is why I don't believe any criticism can be given and why we should never expect them to hit these dates. The only reason we are seeing them in the first place is people wanted to see what progress was happening behind the development.

If the patcher is updated as expected it could be that we then have things a lot more as 3.1.1, 3.1.2 being dropped on the odd week, month or similar with much more minor updates/bug fixes ect and that is what will be hit on time much more often because they are going to be single team or single item/bug updates and so we may not even see them feature in the main schedule but they could be on a much more finite schedule.

I'm not missing the point at all, if they are setting their own targets and consistently missing them, then they should be a little more generous when setting them next time. They are well aware the community is watching progress keenly and wanting them to start hitting them.

You don't get a free pass because it's an aspiration to hit something, not when you repeatedly fail to do so. I'm a fan of the development but I'm not going to keep silent over frankly poor scheduling and project management, which is the only real reason for consistently failing to meet targets regardless of which industry you are managing in. I don't care whether you believe criticism can or cannot be given, it will be and in many cases it's justified. That doesn't mean backers will demand money back etc. It's about keeping some form or pressure on them to keep delivering, you can be a fan whilst still being a customer expecting results.
 
I'm not missing the point at all, if they are setting their own targets and consistently missing them, then they should be a little more generous when setting them next time. They are well aware the community is watching progress keenly and wanting them to start hitting them.

You don't get a free pass because it's an aspiration to hit something, not when you repeatedly fail to do so. I'm a fan of the development but I'm not going to keep silent over frankly poor scheduling and project management, which is the only real reason for consistently failing to meet targets regardless of which industry you are managing in. I don't care whether you believe criticism can or cannot be given, it will be and in many cases it's justified. That doesn't mean backers will demand money back etc. It's about keeping some form or pressure on them to keep delivering, you can be a fan whilst still being a customer expecting results.

Sorry but you are missing it completely. Nothing to do with the criticism, I just believe that it isn't warranted here because the view is honestly deluded. I am done with this conversation though because I really don't think you understand how this works. They are not meeting all their targets but they have also hit a large number too as that is shown in the schedule. The whole thing getting pushed back is because of individual targets that total the target date for the update. They will always miss that every time unless there are no more than half a dozen parts to that update.
 
So I'm guessing because they hit some targets we ignore all those that are missed? Hmm.

If I set myself a set of targets and year on year continue to miss those, I'd expect those paying me to do the task and importantly set my own date for completion to ask questions. That's not deluded.

I'm happy to be done with the convo to though. It's clearly going nowhere.
 
I pop in here every few months just to see what's changed. Not much, it seems. The same criticism of missed targets by some, the same starry eyed devotion and unwillingness to accept said criticism by others... Still no news on SQ42, either? I was hoping to have seen something of it by now.
 
I pop in here every few months just to see what's changed. Not much, it seems. The same criticism of missed targets by some, the same starry eyed devotion and unwillingness to accept said criticism by others... Still no news on SQ42, either? I was hoping to have seen something of it by now.

Nothing to with being starry eyed. I am just saying that the missed targets will always be here. It is the nature of software development be it for gaming or the professional market. Nowt to do with SC directly. It wont change because it can't and it has been explained why numerous times. These dates that we are seeing the other developers also have and also constantly miss, they are just not public.

And honestly seeing the pace and what they are working on nothing will be near what any of us want till I believe 2020. That gives it an 8 year development since first talked about and actually sits about what I expected when I saw the scope in 2014 when I backed it. I am happy sitting and waiting and playing other games.

As I said, personally for me after working with software developers for years I don't believe that the criticism that dates are pushed back is warranted. That is all. People are saying they never hit dates of what they provided but they are missing that they are hitting dates on a huge number of things but just because it isn't one milestone where it means it's in the end user hand it is suddenly them missing every one every time. That isn't how it works and just a blanket view. The miss understanding to the joe public is why these things are not normally visible.

In terms of game, there has been changes of course and people are hopeful when 3.0 drops end of July/August (reality I believe with what is left to do) then we will see why it has taken a long time to get to here.


Edit: just to provide my criticism though to what I can see. I believe the worlds we get although being sold as full of life and things to explore are actually going to feel very desolate. There appears to be no density to anything (apart from rocks) and thus I feel that it will have a very dead atmosphere. Things that make worlds vibrant with huge amounts of wildlife, foliage and natural wonders which I would like to see to explore.

It may be that it changes later on but there isn't really any concept work even to suggest this is a thought. The base construction is all up in the air which is a large part of what I was hoping for with the ship module system already there in principle. That could quickly create much greater variation but it appears they are being much more generic in what they provide with very limited upgrade and adjust-ability paths.
 
Last edited:
I can believe 2020 for SC but I'm hoping sooner for SQ42. We'll see, I suppose. I hope for the sake of the people that have invested heavily that it's as good as it promises to be.

As for content density, it's a concern. I played ED for a while at the beginning and it was too shallow for me. But my understanding is that SC's universe will be somewhat smaller and with less procedural generation, is that correct? So perhaps it won't feel quite as vast and empty as ED.
 
I'm a fanboy of the game, no shame in saying it.
You'd think with over 400 employees though that progress on even this massive, massive feature rich game that it would get done at least a little bit quicker than this.
I'm fine with it, I've been waiting for a game like this for around 15 years. But I will be surprised if the full/PU game isn't released before end of 2020.
 
Back
Top Bottom