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

humbug said:
Agreed.

On a side note, there is something in their explanation of this the latest delay that seems really odd to me, they want to spend two weeks polishing it for Evocati?

The Evocati are just going to get it dirty again. waste of time.
Click to expand...

Not so, if its that far off that it doesn't work together well now they have item 2.0 in and they can see it needs optimising in places for QoL and to even getting it to load smoothly for instance then they can of course take obvious bugs etc.

If they already see issues why pass it on to be told the same when Evocati can focus on other things once they get their hands on it.

There will still be hundreds of issues being picked up so they need to try and provide the best starting experience/test bed possible.
 
humbug said:
Agreed.

On a side note, there is something in their explanation of this the latest delay that seems really odd to me, they want to spend two weeks polishing it for Evocati?

The Evocati are just going to get it dirty again. waste of time.
Click to expand...

Again this is not how reports internally like this work. They produce dates on data they have based on known issues at time, current workload, and known future issues where resources need to be pulled.

If this is done correctly in that manor (which all studios do) the only time they will hit target window will be the final target update and they won't know that any sooner than us in terms of the report.

No company hits these target dates like this. They will have a separate data sheet that will likely extrapolate a much closer expected date line but this will be kept internal to management. Human nature is that of they see they have longer they will slow down. This report will be a live doc visible to all of CiG and what their management and team leaders will use to focus their work force on. Adding arbitrary weeks or months based on gut feeling is not going to be applicable for them.

If you really want to take the dates in any serious manor, take the last date of each window and add at least a few weeks on it. That will be much closer to where we are now in terms of what's been developed.
 
Grandiose_Able_Falcon-size_restricted.gif
 
Hi guys, looking for some group consensus here - realistically when do you think SC/SQ42 will full release?

Reason I'm asking is I have quite a high-spec gaming machine, but I've just got to a place where I have no time/enjoyment of pc gaming so I'm considering selling the pc and using the money tied up in it for other things.

No titles currently out or in development (except SC) even interest me remotely, so my plan is sell all my gear to do other things with the money then when SC does finally come out I will rebuild a system to play it then. Just because my system is considered powerful at the moment, it may not be capable of good performance with SC down the line when it does come out, and I'll have just let it sit gathering dust and depreciating in value for nothing.

Any educated guesses welcome!

Cheers boys.
 
I'd wholeheartedly say sell,
It will come when it comes, and it'll be still worked on when it comes, so you won't 'miss the boat' if you take a number of months to get the pc together when the time comes.
 
it's still a couple of years away from PU, single player episodes may come a little sooner but unlikely by much tbh. sell and get use of the funds mate. I honestly don't you'll need a super computer to run it at release anyway.
 
I don't believe we will be seeing anything in regards to SQ42 until end of 2018 in my opinion. And then by that time you are going to be able to purchase a much better computer.
 
the end of May day date for all those modules to be completed and integrated into the game was 'ambitious' to say the least. I think they should remove the 'month' label from their milestone charts and just have 'years' instead :)
 
Besty said:
the end of May day date for all those modules to be completed and integrated into the game was 'ambitious' to say the least. I think they should remove the 'month' label from their milestone charts and just have 'years' instead :)
Click to expand...

Honestly I'd prefer that, drop evocati builds when they can and not to even estimate timescales but the community on a whole wants an idea of when things are coming and then they obsess about it when it inevitably is "delayed"
 
They are not estimates for us. They are the time frames they give their internal teams to work too. We are just seeing them. So that doesn't work by just removing dates. We have been over this a dozen times and a number still fail to see that this is their internal work frame for producing their workload and how they plan their next stage. It would also become meaningless to show it without any dates on.
 
Because I make reports and create schedules like this every day for my work. We show them to the client to show what we are working on and what are expect times are to complete tasks for the project so they know what is happening but they are still for us to have our internal goals, to organise our work flow, to let our managers and their managers know the current state of affairs. They are not for us in that they are not specifically created for the backers to see. They are just more information to share. This is what I don't understand what people are missing.

They have names on them normally as well but CiG removed them so people didn't get lynched as they know that as a whole like yourself the community doesn't understand. There would be no reason to remove stuff from it if it was intended to be made for us. It really is that simple.

Edit: And in terms of hitting target, it is probably around 10% of the time as an overall if you wanted to take 3.0 as the total for say a single stage such as we do which is known as stages 1 to 5. We are working on a project for Jaguar/Landrover in Gaydon and are at stage 3. That target date is what we are set by management. We aim for that target similar to how 3.0 was originally set based on initial predictions.

We then broke that down into stages that needed to be complete and the expected time to complete them. Now we only hit those at around 60% each because of the human factor. These are things such as holiday, sickness, blockers (something is much more complex in design than first thought) etc.

Those smaller tasks are more accurate overall and CiG do hit a number of them but they are never going to hit the main target on the schedule because there are always factors that cannot be attributed to the project time.

Human nature is also to under estimate and it is very hard to push dates further back to allow for things because awkward questions are always asked by management about how can something take 'X' time. Sometimes you can justify it easily, other times that explanation is much more complex but they still just expect you to resolve it when they want. Again human nature, the more cogs in the wheel the larger the gap from proposed target to achieving happens.
 
Last edited:
Sorry what? They are the programmed dates they work too and yes that would make them internal dates? And yes those dates are of course target dates. Everything I said above says what you said but with an actual explanation. Further to that it reaffirms that the schedule is not directed at us but they are just showing what their aims are and again reaffirming the initial point I made that you initially disagreed with?
 
Yeah I know. That still goes with what I'm saying. It is internal for them still. They just wrote out the info properly so we can see. Its I'm the first paragraph.

You literally stated in what way isnt for us which is a disagreement to something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom