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

Curlyriff said:
A time frame and a date can well be used in same. A time frame can be will be complete within Q1 and a date can be we will complete this with release patch X that comes at end of Q1. That is a date as previously explained.
Click to expand...
Cig has never missed a querter patch.

They have always delivered 4 patches a year.

So even by your definition of date's. They have failed to miss a "date"

Anyways, you have clearly missed my point. You have failed to actually show me a feature or patch where cig said , hey guys salvaging is coming in 11/11/20 .

Or better yet, even remotely saying the month where a feature is coming..

No one seems to understand what "commited" and "tentative" means anymore from the roadmap....

You have been a backer for how long? You should know that the only solid guarantee that a feature is coming soonish is when its in evocadi/ptu testing
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Cig has never missed a querter patch.

They have always delivered 4 patches a year.

So even by your definition of date's. They have failed to miss a "date"

Anyways, you have clearly missed my point. You have failed to actually show me a feature or patch where cig said , hey guys salvaging is coming in 11/11/20 .

Or better yet, even remotely saying the month where a feature is coming..

No one seems to understand what "commited" and "tentative" means anymore from the roadmap....

You have been a backer for how long? You should know that the only solid guarantee that a feature is coming soonish is when its in evocadi/ptu testing
Click to expand...

No well aware of all of what you've said and you're completely missed the point that a feature said to be for say 2016 Q2 or whatever that has now not arrived for 5yrs is a feature missed from a target date.

Also just because they are not a promise or committed when they have said 5 times they are working on said feature, given a quarter and then for it be dropped 4-6 weeks prior to release but 5yr later say "oh we just exploring how to do said feature now" leaves a bad taste and a little lack of trust in what they are doing.

That was the original point and nobody ever stated that "date" referred to an exact day anywhere. That is just how you took to interpret someone's post to defend CIG on something that isn't really defensible when it's an opinion with no true knowledge unless you work there.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Cig has never missed a querter patch.

They have always delivered 4 patches a year.

So even by your definition of date's. They have failed to miss a "date"

Anyways, you have clearly missed my point. You have failed to actually show me a feature or patch where cig said , hey guys salvaging is coming in 11/11/20 .

Or better yet, even remotely saying the month where a feature is coming..

No one seems to understand what "commited" and "tentative" means anymore from the roadmap....

You have been a backer for how long? You should know that the only solid guarantee that a feature is coming soonish is when its in evocadi/ptu testing
Click to expand...


You never watched the video.
roberts says at SC game con when salvaging will be in.
And they missed the date by years.
 
To add they miss their quarter patch, they changed it from being live in the PU to being in evocati for that quarter date for a patch and so patches have ended up being 4-6 weeks after the end of a quarter.

They also did completely scrap the 3.16 code drop and remained in 3.15 code. That patch was actually a 3.15.2 rather than 3.16 but marketing kept it with what is technically the wrong patch number so people whom don't follow gloss over.

That was also bad form and something that should have been rectified because if no code base for 3.16 is used it isn't a quarter patch. It's an interim patch for the previous code branch so they have missed a quarter patch.

As stated before I've been a backer since 2014, I enjoy the game for what is there and I still find it more fun than most games when with friends and certainly more fun than NMS or ED as closest competitors but that doesn't magically absolve CIG of bad management, pushy marketing with fomo and bad community interaction.

For instance, the worst offence of things is the silence of community managers to big discussion topics that happen. They really should be feeding those posts back to CIG teams such as Jared with filtered info on questions and issues and Jared chase that info down to try and share with the community on those hot topics. There are many games companies that do this well and although there is ask the dev section that is much harder to manage effectively because not all devs want a direct link which is fine.

Some such as Yogi have taken a lot of stick when they try to communicate and that's not fair and why it should really be relaid through the community managers as their job and we would likely have more and better interaction there because a dev doesn't have to worry about being directly attacked or similar.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
Just looks like a bunch of clouds to me. I don't see what they are doing there that flight sim games havent already perfected.
Click to expand...

The Volumetric Clouds in MS flight sim do look very good, i don't think they look any better than this, its also a very different game, at ground level MS Flight Sim looks like Google maps 3D overlay, its that bad.

And that's the difference, CIG are making a game with the level of detail and fidelity at least = to that of any AAA game and they are doing it on a scale that is from 500KM in orbit above a planet right the way through to a blade of grass on that planets surface, and its all a single instance.

That is a level WAY above MS Flight Sim.

More over, the sun, its a physical ball of light in the middle of the system, its the Stanton star, its not a sprite in a skybox, there is no skybox, the lighting planet side is created by the composition of the atmosphere warped around the entire planet, the orange glow is created by the same atmospheric light scattering you see on this planet, its not faked by skyboxes and textures, and its on a planetary, no... star system scale, all in a single instance.

What they are doing is incredibly difficult.

In late 2015 when the German office cracked the tech they put out this video, those assets later became Levski.

 
Last edited:
humbug said:
The Volumetric Clouds in MS flight sim do look very good, i don't think they look any better than this, its also a very different game, at ground level MS Flight Sim looks like Google maps 3D overlay, its that bad.

And that's the difference, CIG are making a game with the level of detail and fidelity at least = to that of any AAA game and they are doing it on a scale that is from 500KM in orbit above a planet right the way through to a blade of grass on that planets surface, and its all a single instance.

That is a level WAY above MS Flight Sim.

More over, the sun, its a physical ball of light in the middle of the system, its the Stanton star, its not a sprite in a skybox, there is no skybox, the lighting planet side is created by the composition of the atmosphere warped around the entire planet, the orange glow is created by the same atmospheric light scattering you see on this planet, its not faked by skyboxes and textures, and its on a planetary, no... star system scale, all in a single instance.

What they are doing is incredibly difficult.

In late 2015 when the German office cracked the tech they put out this video, those assets later became Levski.

Click to expand...


Woah, not seen that video for a looooong time! I left CIG in 2018, I did a bit of work on that video
 
humbug said:
The Volumetric Clouds in MS flight sim do look very good, i don't think they look any better than this, its also a very different game, at ground level MS Flight Sim looks like Google maps 3D overlay, its that bad.

And that's the difference, CIG are making a game with the level of detail and fidelity at least = to that of any AAA game and they are doing it on a scale that is from 500KM in orbit above a planet right the way through to a blade of grass on that planets surface, and its all a single instance.

That is a level WAY above MS Flight Sim.

More over, the sun, its a physical ball of light in the middle of the system, its the Stanton star, its not a sprite in a skybox, there is no skybox, the lighting planet side is created by the composition of the atmosphere warped around the entire planet, the orange glow is created by the same atmospheric light scattering you see on this planet, its not faked by skyboxes and textures, and its on a planetary, no... star system scale, all in a single instance.

What they are doing is incredibly difficult.
Click to expand...

And there's a game somewhere in there as well?...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom