DWMagus wrote:Some of this is starting to sound very eerily reminiscent of when Duke Nukem Forever was still in development. Heavy engine modification leading to switching engines before finally getting stuck in development hell.

If they announce an engine switch at any point, maybe to Unreal...

I don't think they're going to change from one licensed engine to another. You could argue however that they already have announced an engine switch to some degree because they've started transitioning from the CryEngine components to custom developed ones created by their poached developers.

From the latest Monthly Report alone:
Foundry 42 section under "Engineering":
"We’ve also been moving over some of the functionality from CryAI into our system and then amending it so it works better for our requirements on Star Citizen."

Foundry 42 Frankfurt section under "Engineering":
"Zone system (the new Star Citizen spatial partitioning scheme, replacing Cryengine Octree)"

Now that's just from one Monthly Report and again I'd like to stress doesn't PROVE anything. It could be just that they created more appropriate systems for their particular game in those limited areas but it does indicate that there is some movement away from CryEngine to homegrown solutions.

Additionally in the latest letter from the chairman most of the delays are blamed on similar moves:
"After attempting to work with the legacy code, we decided that we needed to drop some of the legacy technology. That meant developing what we’re calling a Generic Instance Manager (GIM) and rewriting both the Matchmaker and (for the larger project) the game Launcher from scratch."

I don't know if "legacy code/legacy technology" is CryEngine related or otherwise but there is more wholesale rewrites going on.. (i.e. rewriting from scratch as they say themselves)

ya it looks very bad.
but even if the game is a complete failure anyone who payed 10k for digital ship has no one to blame but himself

So, are all 2012 Kickstarter-funded space games a con? First ED, then SC... not looking good for LT.

Alternatively, looking great for LT because its competition is shit. One way or the other.

DigitalDuck wrote:So, are all 2012 Kickstarter-funded space games a con? First ED, then SC... not looking good for LT.

Alternatively, looking great for LT because its competition is shit. One way or the other.

I think it's an expression that the vast majority of kickstarted games just don't end up meeting pitch goals or even release at all. I say that from impression, not from hard evidence, so feel free to contradict

Scytale wrote: I think it's an expression that the vast majority of kickstarted games just don't end up meeting pitch goals or even release at all. I say that from impression, not from hard evidence, so feel free to contradict

I of course haven't done a detailed scientific study, nor do I have any interest to do so, but for what it's worth I've backed over 100 Kickstarter projects and the vast majority I've been happy with.

I will say that more often than not they miss their projected release date. It does say "ESTIMATED delivery" though and not "GUARANTEED delivery by" and even that is based on the game as defined in the BASE funding goal so every stretch goal reached that adds to the complexity of the game is likely to push out the release date further. Once even one backer as selected a pledge level the campaign creator can no longer edit the pledge level to adjust the release date.

Of all the projects I've backed I only felt the need to request a refund for two (so far). That was Elite: Dangerous and Shadowrun Returns. In both cases I eventually got my refund although Shadowrun Returns later changed their policy that had caused me to ask for the refund so I tore up the check and resumed backer status (at one point they said all future DLC would be Steam only and I was a DRM-free backer... now all the DLC is on GoG.com as well).

I did back both Godus and Star Citizen which have a lot of press around them but I'm still hoping that both eventually ship a game and I don't currently want a refund for either. I think both of these projects currently create a lot of negative crowd-funding hype but they are the exceptions not the rules.

Maybe I'm just really good at picking kickstarters though or actually have realistic expectations on what exactly I'm backing.

Asmodai wrote:Of all the projects I've backed I only felt the need to request a refund for two (so far). That was Elite: Dangerous and Shadowrun Returns. In both cases I eventually got my refund

Lucky you.

Kambalo wrote:Because of the irreversible damage the failure (I hope it does not fail) of SC could cause to all the players, we in one way of another use the online method to stay connected. Also the damage that would create towards kickstartes and crowfunded games.

I don't think that anything will happen if the game fails in some way or another. There will be disappointment, naturally, but I think that everything will remain the same, even if the idea that on-line gaming could be damaged pleases my selfish self some how. The end of on-line gaming? Are you kidding? That sounds sweet! But I know that it's not going to happen, at least not because of Star Citizen. I actually never cared too much about the multiplayer aspect of this game. I'm more interested on Squadron 42, and there is no reason to believe that anything wrong will happen around it. And there is even people saying that Mark Hamill could be part of it. Can you imaging if that's true?

Asmodai wrote:The high level departures are real.

High level is an exaggeration. People leave. It's a sad but common thing. We don't know if it means anything.

Asmodai wrote:The FPS "indefinite delay" of the FPS module is real.

No, it's not. It has already been mentioned that its a few weeks delay, nothing unusual for Star Citizen or other games. (And we are talking about a module for the bakers, not the final game, so even if they cancel it -which its not going to happen- wouldn't mean anything.)

Asmodai wrote:The kickstarter funded in 2012 with an estimated delivery of 2014 still doesn't have anything similar to the actual kickstarter pledged game. A ship viewer/garage was not something we backed nor was Arena Combat or even the FPS module.

We all know that November 2014 -a few months ago- was an estimation and a highly unrealistic one. However, the game has grown on scope so it's logical that the development time will increase. Some people don't agree with this, they would prefer to have the basic idea sooner, but I have no problem with that. If the game is going to be better and bigger then so be it. I'm more concerned about the quality of the game from a design standpoint: walking controls, spaceflight functionality, weapon handling and so on. It's there when I feel that the game could fail me, and there is nothing I can do about it. I have not creative control over the game.

And yes, we haven't seen anything similar to a finished game yet, but that's logical. It would make no sense for them to show us too much. It's OK to let us play with different things (drive some ships, walk around our hangar, shoot stuff on first person which is already possible) but you want to keep the more interesting stuff secret until the game comes out.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:i was wondering all the time: why cryengine?

Isnt it like unity had that 64 bit stuff and flexibility all the time which they had to wrench into cry?
(Im thinking of kerbal here, that already worked when sc got announced)

No. Unity doesn't have 64bit anything. You are very limited with the scale of things. KSP uses a miniaturized solar system to make it look bigger (using multiple cameras at once), and it moves the planets around the player so the player is always close to the center of the map. Besides, camera view distance is extremely limited, but I think that's the case with CryEngine too. Only Unreal seems to have infinite view distance, but light is a different problem altogether.

EDIT: Things could have changed in recent times, so what I said above could be inaccurate.

It could also be that a lot of these people who crowdfunded games may not be as familiar with the concept of crowdfunding. It's not a publisher just signing your checks and keeping you (somewhat) on schedule. If it starts raining money, there's no reason not to celebrate. But at the end of the day, you still need a plan of action.

To be honest, I see far more forthcoming from the indie scene of people trying to make it far more than those who 'used to' be in the big business just trying to make another star title.

Scytale wrote:

DigitalDuck wrote:So, are all 2012 Kickstarter-funded space games a con? First ED, then SC... not looking good for LT.

Alternatively, looking great for LT because its competition is shit. One way or the other.

I think it's an expression that the vast majority of kickstarted games just don't end up meeting pitch goals or even release at all. I say that from impression, not from hard evidence, so feel free to contradict

It's like a carton of eggs. You peek in, see a broken one, and you don't bother to buy it.

Etsu wrote: No. Unity doesn't have 64bit anything. You are very limited with the scale of things. KSP uses a miniaturized solar system to make it look bigger
(using multiple cameras at once)

The tricks are the least problem, point is that unity can do it without you having to rip apart the engine.

KSP produces believable sized solar systems even in vanilla, and the real solar system mod creates realistic systems without code ripping.

Thing is it works and cry doesnt even have the coordinate space per default for it to work.

Etsu wrote: and it moves the planets around the player so the player is always close to the center of the map.

every and any game engine does that
Dont move the player, move the world and keep the viewpoint itself static

Etsu wrote: Besides, camera view distance is extremely limited, but I think that's the case with CryEngine too. Only Unreal seems to have infinite view distance, but light is a different problem altogether.

EDIT: Things could have changed in recent times, so what I said above could be inaccurate.

cant find any sources for either none of the three engines, so i cant really comment in either direction.

But i just point at KSP and say "to me it looks like it works"
*shrug*

*drops in*
Unity does have a 64 bit version. And so does ksp, albeit only on Linux - the Windows 64 bit version was dropped due to bugs in unity.
*drops out again*

Etsu wrote: High level is an exaggeration. People leave. It's a sad but common thing. We don't know if it means anything.

Are you serious? If the Executive Producer isn't high level what is? As for KNOWING if it means anything I repeat:

"I agree none of that is PROOF Star Citizen is falling apart but I don't see how you can say there is NO evidence, AT ALL."

Etsu wrote: We all know that November 2014 -a few months ago- was an estimation and a highly unrealistic one. However, the game has grown on scope so it's logical that the development time will increase. Some people don't agree with this, they would prefer to have the basic idea sooner, but I have no problem with that. If the game is going to be better and bigger then so be it. I'm more concerned about the quality of the game from a design standpoint: walking controls, spaceflight functionality, weapon handling and so on. It's there when I feel that the game could fail me, and there is nothing I can do about it. I have not creative control over the game.

That's EXACTLY the problem. People who backed the Kickstarter are supposed to get the game that was promised as part of the Kickstarter (with any stretch goals added DURING THE KICKSTARTER campaign). Sure it's ok to extend the release date because features you promised as part of the campaign take a little longer than expected, that happens all the time and most people don't get so upset about it. (some do but nothing like what is happening now). This game is STILL growing in scope today though, they're STILL making and selling new ships and such and that is delaying the game. It doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with them extending the scope. The Kickstarter agreement is a legally binding agreement to provide a certain product (whatever is in the backer rewards and described in the campaign) or at least make an honest attempt to do so. If they're spending kickstarter funding working of features that were added by their own stretch goals and such AFTER the kickstarter closed then that's wrong. As is delaying the game the kickstarter described to add more features that that the backers may or may not even want.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:The tricks are the least problem, point is that unity can do it without you having to rip apart the engine.

KSP produces believable sized solar systems even in vanilla, and the real solar system mod creates realistic systems without code ripping.

Thing is it works and cry doesnt even have the coordinate space per default for it to work.

No, it can't. The solar system is not big, it just looks big. You are viewing a miniaturized version of it. When you see the Mun is actually a few meters away from the camera, or less. Star Citizen is trying to have realistic scales, so it needs more work. Actually, that's the way to do it, but as the cited article mentions you need to create your own engine for that or modify and old one, and that's what CIG is doing. Nothing wrong with that. It's actually pretty cool if it works.

I don't know if what the game is trying to achieve would be even possible any other way: multiplayer combat and exploration over millions of miles of space, with space stations and asteroid fields and all kind of shit. You don't want to have to play the full game with distances similar to those of Arena Commander, right? Then you probably need to make changes to the code, no matter if it's CryEngine, Unity or Unreal. It's the same thing.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:every and any game engine does that
Dont move the player, move the world and keep the viewpoint itself static

This is the first time I hear that. I'm pretty sure that Unity doesn't do that and in Unreal I had to work hard to get that functionality, and is extremely problematic. (For example, if you go too fast you will start getting awful delays due to the fact that you are moving the universe around, so there is a limitation of speed there relative to your frames per second.)

Actually, Unreal has a function to do something like that automatically but: it doesn't work with streaming levels (which I need to had a loading icon) and I never managed to make it work properly, so I did it myself. I think I know how to do it using Unity, but I never tried.

If any engine does it by itself then we should not need loading screens, ever, because you can go as far as you want, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:But i just point at KSP and say "to me it looks like it works"*shrug*

Again: what KSP does has nothing to do with what Chris Roberts is trying to do with Star Citizen, and I think that the Star Citizen approach is the right one. The creators are trying to eliminate a limitation that regular engines have and KSP also has. I disagree with the idea that changing CryEngine code is a bad thing. Actually is almost a necessity, and it happens with Unreal too every day. The good thing about Unreal is that Epic is adding some of those changes made by the public to the main distribution, so everyone can be beneficed by it.

Dinosawer wrote:*drops in*
Unity does have a 64 bit version. And so does ksp, albeit only on Linux - the Windows 64 bit version was dropped due to bugs in unity.
*drops out again*

Every engine works on 64 bits. We are talking about the coordinate system, which determines how big a map can be. In the case of Unity, CryEngine and Unreal, maps have to be very small (relatively speaking), and CIG is trying to improve the technology behind it so we can have bigger maps and scenes. (I think they are talking about distances that go from the Sun to the orbit of Pluto. Now compare that with the 16 to 20 kilometers we have now.) I think that they have already done that. They are also making other improvements to the code to make the engine performs better, and I can't imagine how that could be a bad thing.

Now, I'm not an expert on this subjects, so I will probably stop making comments about it. I will remain positive about the game because Chris Robetrs and company sold us a good idea and they seem to be working very hard to make it right. We all know that things can go wrong. That's the nature of the beast. But I don't want to dance to the song of those who would like to see all this thing to fail. I don't want it to fail, but it will not change my life if it does. It's just another game, and there are much better and interesting games coming up in the near future. The only constructive thing we can do now is wait and see. I still believe that this may be special.

Etsu wrote:No, it can't. The solar system is not big, it just looks big. You are viewing a miniaturized version of it. When you see the Mun is actually a few meters away from the camera, or less. Star Citizen is trying to have realistic scales, so it needs more work. Actually, that's the way to do it, but as the cited article mentions you need to create your own engine for that or modify and old one, and that's what CIG is doing. Nothing wrong with that. It's actually pretty cool if it works.

No.

The concept of a "metre" is a human construct used to measure distances in the real world. It does not apply to computer programs.

You're not viewing a miniaturised version of it. Their base unit may not be the metre, but that doesn't suddenly make everything smaller. It means the numbers they use are smaller because smaller numbers are generally easier to manage (until they get too small again).

Etsu wrote:This is the first time I hear that. I'm pretty sure that Unity doesn't do that and in Unreal I had to work hard to get that functionality, and is extremely problematic. (For example, if you go too fast you will start getting awful delays due to the fact that you are moving the universe around, so there is a limitation of speed there relative to your frames per second.)

Strictly speaking every game does move the world around the camera, as the camera position/orientation is merely a multiplication matrix applied to objects before rendering them, as such rendering from a camera at zero with identity transform. Mostly because it's more efficient that way.

I don't understand why there'd be "awful delays" if you go too fast - you're still performing the same number of transforms per second. You'd have the problem of missing collisions as with any game you travel too fast in, regardless of what you're doing with the camera etc.

Etsu wrote:If any engine does it by itself then we should not need loading screens, ever, because you can go as far as you want, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

You can go as far as you want, sure. Memory is kinda finite, though. Dunno if you realise that. You need to load stuff if you want more stuff in there.

Etsu wrote:Every engine works on 64 bits. We are talking about the coordinate system, which determines how big a map can be. In the case of Unity, CryEngine and Unreal, maps have to be very small (relatively speaking), and CIG is trying to improve the technology behind it so we can have bigger maps and scenes. (I think they are talking about distances that go from the Sun to the orbit of Pluto. Now compare that with the 16 to 20 kilometers we have now.) I think that they have already done that. They are also making other improvements to the code to make the engine performs better, and I can't imagine how that could be a bad thing.

Again, no. That's not how units work. You can make it any size you like; the length of the numbers indicates the accuracy, not the physical size.

Etsu wrote:Now, I'm not an expert on this subjects

At least you're honest about it.

I'm beginning to really doubt SC. I think on one hand, it has one saving grace...you only have to pay a minimum of 30 dollars for the game. No one is forcing anyone to pay for anything extra. On the other hand what game besides Wing Commander has CR really done? If you say Freelancer, I'll say FL had the same issues we're seeing now, CR was fired, and the game pushed out, yeah a good game by all standards, but if it was up to CR it would probably still be in development.

The thing is with this perfectionist and fidelity and other silly words approach to development, he'll never release and spends too much resources on little things. I mean do you see how much resources and time they are spending on an animation JUKE for when you start/stop running? I mean come on.

While Derek Smart has good valid points, which any number of them COULD be right, he is a pot calling the kettle black. I've followed Dsmart from since 1998. I've seen him announce so many projects and then they drop by the way side never to be heard from again. Galcom Online anyone? He was also the first person to ever charge for entry to a 'beta' test to a game. Battlecruiser Millenium required 15 dollar fee to enter the Beta, which at the time included you being mailed a CD. He was heavily ridiculed for charging for people to 'test' his game at the time, but we've come to know this now as 'early access'.

Now he is ridiculing others for breaking new ground, and is the king of broken promises and games.

In the end SC charges a minimum of 30 for the game. If people have the cash to fork on a virtual ship, then who am I, who is Derek Smart and who is the industry or the press to determine what these people should or shouldn't do with their money? You can't tell me that you REALLY care if some stranger is scammed out of their money.