- Modular development is what they have used since 2013.
- Too many bugs to track and control? There's a handful per member of staff and likely several with the same root cause. That's actually a very small number.
- It's a hell of a tech demo, which has been developed over years and has millions of hours of game time from backers. It's a tech demo with more played time than many top selling PC games.
- The fact you think SQ42 should have come out first shows a lack of understanding about how the game is being developed (see comment about modular development). The two games are interlinked, use the same engine and game mechanics as a result. They must match as one will lead players into the other, otherwise you end up with duplicate work adding additional delays (we have enough of those already) thanks to now supporting two different games long term. If SQ42 came out in 2016, which arguably could have happened if they focused solely on it and Star Citizen 5+ years later then those two games would be very, very different at the core even with SQ42 getting content released along the way.
- Having a Golden Ticket doesn't mean your opinion is more or less valid, all it states is that you signed up at the same time I did for a mailing list.
- If you are unhappy from what I understand you can still get a full refund without argument.
******Official Star Citizen / Squadron 42 Thread******
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
- Modular development is what they have used since 2013.
Yes I already know that. They seem to want to complete all the modules before releasing a game. I understand that, but not if completing the modules to release standard will take 20 years.
- Too many bugs to track and control? There's a handful per member of staff and likely several with the same root cause. That's actually a very small number.
Staff and departments spread around the world. That doesn't work well. Communication is a major weakness of all businesses. We both don't know the proper bug breakdown, but can agree they're present in all modules.
- It's a hell of a tech demo, which has been developed over years and has millions of hours of game time from backers. It's a tech demo with more played time than many top selling PC games.
Tech demo is a tech demo at the end of the day.
- The fact you think SQ42 should have come out first shows a lack of understanding about how the game is being developed (see comment about modular development). The two games are interlinked, use the same engine and game mechanics as a result. They must match as one will lead players into the other, otherwise you end up with duplicate work adding additional delays (we have enough of those already) thanks to now supporting two different games long term. If SQ42 came out in 2016, which arguably could have happened if they focused solely on it and Star Citizen 5+ years later then those two games would be very, very different at the core even with SQ42 getting content released along the way.
No lack of understanding. As you state, both being built and designed within the same engine, with the same end goal. So SQ42 could have easily come first, as it's still using the same engine.
- Having a Golden Ticket doesn't mean your opinion is more or less valid, all it states is that you signed up at the same time I did for a mailing list.
I'm not saying my opinion is weighted or not. Merely, that I've been in from the start, as opposed to much later.
- If you are unhappy from what I understand you can still get a full refund without argument.
I know I can still get a refund as from the original agreement. I'm not heavily invested in it to seek a refund. I can criticise the development progress tho
No your missing the point in terms of modular development and co-development. The core for both games requires code development. The core tech for both hasn't been finished in its entirety for instance AI subsumption.
SQ42 is going to be out before the PU but neither are ready.
To suggest they are failing with communication skills because of them having multiple studios is odd. All major developers have studios all over the world. It actually speeds up development by utilising different time zones. We can very easily communicate with things such as Skype for meetings and all be on the same dev branch. Be of you are in the same office on a different floor or a thousand miles away makes little difference in honesty.
The modules take as long as they take and every game is developed in this manor. Not sure why anyone would suggest that they wouldn't be building modules and stitching then together in the 3.X build. The devs will have builds from 3.0 to 3.3 on their systems. Certain modules will be loaded to certain builds. As more modules are complete they will be loaded into those core branches. Within those branches there are likely to be sub branches they are working on with certain key elements from different teams being linked together.
They are at a point where almost all the core tech has had first pass and they are working on 2nd pass (generally there is only two passes, one to get it in the tech demo and 2nd to flesh it out fully) and they are working on hosts of secondary tech that link of core tech. So for instance item 2.0 is core tech, power management is secondary tech utilising the core. Render to texture core tech, utilising it for holograms, mirrors, CCTV cams etc is secondary utilisation from it being used for the user interface stuff which is why originally developed.
The tech demo of 2.6.3 may be stale as its very old so not as many people on it but it was what they intended, a modular part of the game they are developing for our feedback. But that doesn't mean development of Star Citizen or SQ42 has gone stale. The ATV's have shown some significant steps over last 6 months.
I understand the worry that its taking too long but based on how development goes, the restarts with the new tech and similar they are actually iterating on their game pretty quickly. Just that being public from day 1 will always make it feel like its taken too long. Nature of the dev cycle and the world we live in.
SQ42 is going to be out before the PU but neither are ready.
To suggest they are failing with communication skills because of them having multiple studios is odd. All major developers have studios all over the world. It actually speeds up development by utilising different time zones. We can very easily communicate with things such as Skype for meetings and all be on the same dev branch. Be of you are in the same office on a different floor or a thousand miles away makes little difference in honesty.
The modules take as long as they take and every game is developed in this manor. Not sure why anyone would suggest that they wouldn't be building modules and stitching then together in the 3.X build. The devs will have builds from 3.0 to 3.3 on their systems. Certain modules will be loaded to certain builds. As more modules are complete they will be loaded into those core branches. Within those branches there are likely to be sub branches they are working on with certain key elements from different teams being linked together.
They are at a point where almost all the core tech has had first pass and they are working on 2nd pass (generally there is only two passes, one to get it in the tech demo and 2nd to flesh it out fully) and they are working on hosts of secondary tech that link of core tech. So for instance item 2.0 is core tech, power management is secondary tech utilising the core. Render to texture core tech, utilising it for holograms, mirrors, CCTV cams etc is secondary utilisation from it being used for the user interface stuff which is why originally developed.
The tech demo of 2.6.3 may be stale as its very old so not as many people on it but it was what they intended, a modular part of the game they are developing for our feedback. But that doesn't mean development of Star Citizen or SQ42 has gone stale. The ATV's have shown some significant steps over last 6 months.
I understand the worry that its taking too long but based on how development goes, the restarts with the new tech and similar they are actually iterating on their game pretty quickly. Just that being public from day 1 will always make it feel like its taken too long. Nature of the dev cycle and the world we live in.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
3.0 is the core release and future 3.x will build on top of that, they have mentioned many times now that 3.0 is delayed because (as mentioned above) the core features need to be ready to allow them to build on. Delta patcher for example being one of those (now works). There are still bugs with object containers and switching from object to x, as was seen in gamescom repeatedly.
@djkav is correct in that there are a lot more bugs than what they are telling though, as is evident in the tech demo, basic things like hit mechanics, flight (the key mechanics of the game), don't work and that's not even going onto the new functionality.
It's gotten to the point where deadlines is a joke for CR and the project as a whole won't give deadlines - that is unheard of in project terms. Working to your own deadline is one thing - not giving a deadline is quite another.
@djkav is correct in that there are a lot more bugs than what they are telling though, as is evident in the tech demo, basic things like hit mechanics, flight (the key mechanics of the game), don't work and that's not even going onto the new functionality.
It's gotten to the point where deadlines is a joke for CR and the project as a whole won't give deadlines - that is unheard of in project terms. Working to your own deadline is one thing - not giving a deadline is quite another.
- Modular development is what they have used since 2013.
Yes I already know that. They seem to want to complete all the modules before releasing a game. I understand that, but not if completing the modules to release standard will take 20 years.
- Too many bugs to track and control? There's a handful per member of staff and likely several with the same root cause. That's actually a very small number.
Staff and departments spread around the world. That doesn't work well. Communication is a major weakness of all businesses. We both don't know the proper bug breakdown, but can agree they're present in all modules.
- It's a hell of a tech demo, which has been developed over years and has millions of hours of game time from backers. It's a tech demo with more played time than many top selling PC games.
Tech demo is a tech demo at the end of the day.
- The fact you think SQ42 should have come out first shows a lack of understanding about how the game is being developed (see comment about modular development). The two games are interlinked, use the same engine and game mechanics as a result. They must match as one will lead players into the other, otherwise you end up with duplicate work adding additional delays (we have enough of those already) thanks to now supporting two different games long term. If SQ42 came out in 2016, which arguably could have happened if they focused solely on it and Star Citizen 5+ years later then those two games would be very, very different at the core even with SQ42 getting content released along the way.
No lack of understanding. As you state, both being built and designed within the same engine, with the same end goal. So SQ42 could have easily come first, as it's still using the same engine.
- Having a Golden Ticket doesn't mean your opinion is more or less valid, all it states is that you signed up at the same time I did for a mailing list.
I'm not saying my opinion is weighted or not. Merely, that I've been in from the start, as opposed to much later.
- If you are unhappy from what I understand you can still get a full refund without argument.
I know I can still get a refund as from the original agreement. I'm not heavily invested in it to seek a refund. I can criticise the development progress tho
You're missing my point with SQ42, if they'd released it the SQ42 game would be missing a HUGE amount of the work they've done since. Modularity of items, damage states, fidelity in general, animation of NPCs, voice work, modeling work (some ships would be very different between SQ42 and PU), even basic mechanics would be missing or simply different if they were placed into SQ42 and then changed later. In short they'd either spend their time constantly updating SQ42 as well as the PU and trust me SQ42 would then become immensely important to prevent negative press affecting PU or they'd have to basically put their hands up and say "screw it - they'll just be different".
Yes you've been around from the beginning but ATV (and before it WMH) weekly explain the differences week on week between the builds, what you suggest would be simply daft, wasteful and utterly pointless from a long term support perspective. They'd end up with two very different games and having to support both without the connectivity between them which was the idea at the start and whilst if you did back early on - was what you were buying into.
When it come to criticising the game, all of us I think on here do it on a regular basis, this thread is full of complaints from pretty much all of us lol
Last edited:
Yeah, that's something that's crossed my mind too. Once SQ42 goes gold, they pretty much lock themselves into every aspect of how the fundamental mechanics of the game work. I mean, I guess they could port changes from SC into SQ42, but then that will undoubtedly have an impact on the balance / difficulty of sq42, and would possibly break sections of it.
I'm tempted by the 600i explorer.. Can melt enough ships (Avenger Titan, Freelancer MIS and Vanguard Warden) with $5USD extra to get it... Should I? I quite like the idea of a nice comfy explorer to go with my cutlass blue, but I'm a wee bit cautious about whether I really need it.
I hate the vanguard warden and will likely look to get rid of it but I don't want to melt as I lose the LTI so can only upgrade to a more expensive ship or should I hold on to it until the 'sales' when more ships come up as there is only the Aquila and the 600i available that is more costly than the vanguard warden.
I hate the vanguard warden and will likely look to get rid of it but I don't want to melt as I lose the LTI so can only upgrade to a more expensive ship or should I hold on to it until the 'sales' when more ships come up as there is only the Aquila and the 600i available that is more costly than the vanguard warden.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Posts
- 3,089
- Location
- Edinburgh
My answer is always no, get it in game.
but I'm a grouch who's looking forward to the grind of getting the ships and working up
but I'm a grouch who's looking forward to the grind of getting the ships and working up
lol.
so instead of going to a huge public forum and blowing everyone away and directing them to the site so they could download at home and try it to their heart's content [a sensible move would be a Free To Try event again], they apparently decided just to show a glitchy fraction of what they've got so that people could come and play a half/quarter-finished effort for a few minutes?
lol again.
Nothing they did in restricting it was unreasonable, it made perfect sense, i have already explained it, no need to go over it again.
How do you know they didn't hand out flyers? you can bet your life they did and there will be a 'free fly' weekend if not week once 3.0 lands public. there always is after such an event.
CIG are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Why didn't they give full public access to their current build and incur massive bandwidth and infrastructure costs? Simply, because the don't have to. This was Gamescon. The Con part is for conference, and like any other conference it's based around the attendees. Would you go to a Microsft conference and demand they give global access to their latest projects? I don't think so.
Software development is an iterative process, and what we saw was a large improvement and refinement over what we saw last year. It was a nearly identical demo for that reason, to show progress. Have I been concerned at the speed of progress? Yes. Have I considered a refund? Yes. Then I see another ill thought out comment and remember the reason I backed. This game NEEDS to be made, and done right. It's the kick up the backside that the gaming industry is crying out for. CIG are going to be aware that 3.0 is the made or break point for the project, so it has to be everything we expect and more. So, lol away all you want, but don't understimate the importance of the project as a whole.
ATV Burndown...
This one actually has a good example of the different professions in a studio were one does not necessarily know what's going on with the other.
As they explain the door was at a different hight to the players animation so something like a step needed to be put there to correct that hight, now, the fact that when the player walked upto that door he was bouncing up and down to me was a clue to what was actually wrong there.
I'll explain, in Cryengine when you play an animation the engine needs to know where that object is in its 3D space, in the same way that when you reach for the door handle your brain needs to know where you are relative to it, for that Cryengine has a "GetPosition" node in Flowgraph, the programmer will have used that node to align the animation with the door at the correct hight, but when the designer got around to putting the door in he didn't put the door in at the same level with the floor.
So you walk up to the door into the area where the programmer added some form of positioning request for the animation, it computes the location ready for the animation and realises the player is too low to transition smoothly into the animation at the right height, the level of the door, so it moves the player up into the correct petition, then another part of the engines brain, the collision physics perhaps, thinks the player is not on the floor and puts it back down, then the animation positioning says again "Too low" and pulls it back up..... and so it goes on like a tug of war between these conflicting positioning requests, up - down -up - down -up........... put the stairs in at a hight that satisfies both requests, problem solved....
This one actually has a good example of the different professions in a studio were one does not necessarily know what's going on with the other.
As they explain the door was at a different hight to the players animation so something like a step needed to be put there to correct that hight, now, the fact that when the player walked upto that door he was bouncing up and down to me was a clue to what was actually wrong there.
I'll explain, in Cryengine when you play an animation the engine needs to know where that object is in its 3D space, in the same way that when you reach for the door handle your brain needs to know where you are relative to it, for that Cryengine has a "GetPosition" node in Flowgraph, the programmer will have used that node to align the animation with the door at the correct hight, but when the designer got around to putting the door in he didn't put the door in at the same level with the floor.
So you walk up to the door into the area where the programmer added some form of positioning request for the animation, it computes the location ready for the animation and realises the player is too low to transition smoothly into the animation at the right height, the level of the door, so it moves the player up into the correct petition, then another part of the engines brain, the collision physics perhaps, thinks the player is not on the floor and puts it back down, then the animation positioning says again "Too low" and pulls it back up..... and so it goes on like a tug of war between these conflicting positioning requests, up - down -up - down -up........... put the stairs in at a hight that satisfies both requests, problem solved....
Last edited:
what ARE you talking about, that's not even remotely a sensible comparison.
Firstly, the Con is Convention, FYI, and secondly since you can't understand a simple post, what i meant was wow people at the con w/ more than "just a fraction" of the new flashy stuff and not some buggy half-arsed attempt, and let people play on the current system as much as they want. instead they had a glitchy demo of a lot of stuff already seen, and limited play time so people can't really get a feel of what is there or what it can do.
so yeah, i'll lol all i want, especially at your post.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 8,077
- Location
- The king of the north!
I have to admit @humbug last week i actually requested a refund, ( i will be staying invested in the game ) but for now would rather have my +£1000 back as i literally can't do anything with it and i haven't been able to do what i was promised in the time frame.
You know yourself how much i adore SC but there comes a point where it gets silly. I need to pull it back sooner before it's too late.
You know yourself how much i adore SC but there comes a point where it gets silly. I need to pull it back sooner before it's too late.