Return to “General”

Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#181
Gazz wrote:
Poet1960 wrote:I guess it would depend on which tree you happened to climb. :mrgreen:
Absolutely.

He that climbs the tall tree has won right to the fruit, He that leaps the wide gulf should prevail in his suit.
― Walter Scott

He that leaps from the tallest tree should get the broken leg debuff.
― Gazz

Know why elephants paint their toe nails red? So they can hide in cherry trees.

Know why elephants have flat feet? From jumping out of cherry trees.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#186
TGS wrote:I know Josh has the talent and the skill. I wouldn't go as far as some go to call him a "coding warrior" or "LT jedi" or whatever the cute little euphemisms are that people use for him but he is very smart.
:eh: I don't call Josh a "coding warrior" because he's smart, I call him that because it perfectly describes his courage and skill in the subject he has chosen to pursue. ;)

And to a lesser extent (but still important) his love for the medieval in games like Morrowind. :angel:

There's nothing cute or euphemistic about my substitution for his name, TGS. :P
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#189
I vehemently disagree with this notion.
TGS wrote:
Also I think personally that it might be a good idea for everyone not just him to stop viewing LT as "Josh's project". It's not. It's Josh's and 5,449 other peoples project. If a publisher were involved it would be their project. Literally. Their name would be all over it. Licensing, IP, ownership would all go to them. So this idea that people keep throwing that it is "Josh's game" and "Josh's project" it's not. It never was. I know it's cute and nice to think that but it isn't. crowd funding is a relatively new beast in that people still haven't quite got the hang of how it sits in the publisher vs indie vs collective collaboration mess but at this point my logic is that this project belongs just as much to the 5,449 backers as it does Josh, more so in many ways as they fronted the money to see this through.
I don't see how one could possibly consider this project to be anyones project but Josh's :thumbdown: . Does the exchange of some money really mean that this project belongs to those backers? :?: Money is a meaningless concept which we have have to put up with because it (like oxytocin) organises social behaviour :thumbup: . It's a means to an end :| . We use it to ensure that the innumerable wants of society can be met by creating a motive to generate abundances through efficiency and a working approximation of optimal resource allocation. :clap:

The "fact" that capital creates ownership is merely an illusion reflecting the way in which we as a species get lost in rigid systems and social orders, letting it abrogate our perspective of reality. :monkey: The only real property is intellectual (and even that should be shared) :thumbup: .
When considering ownership (that construction of the ego) from this viewpoint , LT is 100% Josh's; it's his idea, his vision, his dream game and his journey. Every line of code belongs to him because he wrote them.

Kickstarter is not intended to be a venture capitalist enterprise designed to allow the bourgeoisie even quicker access to the intellectual fruits of the creatives. :twisted: It's a voyage into the democratic selection and support of new concepts and projects and ideas. It provides an individualistic corrective to an age-old economic concept of asset allocation, except unlike politics its not producing autocratic democracies :o . Sure, the backers of LT made it possible with their little moneys but the project existed before the kickstarter campaign and before Josh even thought of it. No matter what, it finds existence in a platonic idealism of the mind. It just so happens that the right resources, skills and vision came together at the right time to give LT a physical existence. Using the model of a publisher to developer relationship as analogy for our relationship to Josh (I would have backed if I hadn't noticed LT too late) implies that one believes it to be the way things should be :?: . I don't think that everyone believes that the developers (in general) contribution to a game should be marginalised by the economic power of the publisher. :thumbup:

Money does not equal ownership! :x Kickstarter allows us to transcend the old paradigm of capitalism and we cannot waste a such a platform by elevating the role of money ( a means to an end). Josh is sole intellectual owner of this game and we are merely along for the ride. If he sees some new path he wishes to explore then we should accept LT as a product of his mind and let its development takes its natural course; our only right towards LT resides in our sharing of its platonic ideal (which exists in shared space). :angel:

Lurker out. :D
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#191
JoshParnell wrote:LTSL is also the (sole) reason LT supports modding...just throwing that out there in case anyone forgot that LT was originally to ship as a hard-coded, tweakable-but-not-moddable game. Yes, a dev tool, but with pretty massive ramifications for the game's life after release...
Well, it's good to know.

I mean no disrespect Josh. I honestly don't.

It's just from this side of the computer screen I remember the years of LT development where every month massive improvements and changes were occurring and it seemed like you were on the highway to completion. It seemed like everything was coming together. I know that in almost all software, it's the way of things, the first 80% is the fastest, the last 20% takes 80% of the time. However, it seemed you had mostly side stepped this trend with your one man team approach, (for what ever reason). I recall the day when your showed us LT, and the AI was doing it's own thing and reacting in it's own way to changes, and I recall in awe thinking, "it's happening".

I know I am arm chair quarterbacking here, I am merely seeking to understand and to remove my ignorance to the whole thing.

However, to me, it was just before the start of LTSL that everything seemed to.. stop. Everything seemed to be put on hold. For the things that didn't, it's when the circular development seemed to really happen. Again, this is all from the prospective from this side of the computer screen of course.

From what you have opened up to us on your dark days, you admitted to getting stuck on circular cycle of not really moving forward. You also informed us that something you had done to LT had to be undone.

During the half of year of LTSL development it was sold as the thing that would cause a massive content explosion. I know your keeping your cards close, however, so I don't know what you have done since you went silent, but I am guessing there has been no explosion. If I am mistaken I and truly sorry.
Last edited by Zanteogo on Sat Dec 05, 2015 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My Signature
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#192
Xifong wrote:I vehemently disagree with this notion.
TGS wrote:
Also I think personally that it might be a good idea for everyone not just him to stop viewing LT as "Josh's project". It's not. It's Josh's and 5,449 other peoples project. If a publisher were involved it would be their project. Literally. Their name would be all over it. Licensing, IP, ownership would all go to them. So this idea that people keep throwing that it is "Josh's game" and "Josh's project" it's not. It never was. I know it's cute and nice to think that but it isn't. crowd funding is a relatively new beast in that people still haven't quite got the hang of how it sits in the publisher vs indie vs collective collaboration mess but at this point my logic is that this project belongs just as much to the 5,449 backers as it does Josh, more so in many ways as they fronted the money to see this through.
*wall of text*
I agree for the most part. It's sort of like in the times of past when rich aristocrats used to commission artists to do great works. The artist needed to be sponsored or else would never afford the supplies or be able to eat during the time that was needed to create. However, the sponsors felt a massive amount of ownership and it would be a continuous back and forth conflict with the artist wanting to do it his way, and taking the time needed to complete the way he wanted to complete.

The flip side is that it's not always bad that people feel a connection to a project and care what is happening to it. It's an effect of Josh being super open with his day to day and giving us some massive insight to what he is doing. (or how he used to do it)

However, coming in and telling Josh how he's going to do things and when things have to be done just because some of us have given him money... no.

I am the first person to question things. I am not afraid to give my 2 cents. Sometimes my 2 cents is wrong. I would never force an artist to work a certain way however, regardless of how much money I have given them.

edit: just to clarify, artists under certain circumstances do need to be forced. An example would be a traditional programing team approach. If one programmer decides to spend 10 years working on one thing, everyone else on the team is force to sit and wait. Josh is working by himself, so this doesn't apply. Also, again, nothing wrong with questioning things, just pulling the old "we own Josh because we gave him money" doesn't fly.
My Signature
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#193
Victor Tombs wrote:
Black--Snow wrote:This is the first time I've caught my self thinking "I hope LT is released past August 18 2017".
:? I find myself being somewhat curious and bewildered by the date your reply contains, Black--Snow. I hope I don't reveal any ignorance on my part by asking why this date is important to you?
Baal wrote:It is pointless to become emotionally invested in something you cannot control.
I fear I may have become emotionally invested in the Limit Theory project, Baal. Mainly because of the promise it holds as the game I've been waiting to play for far longer than I've known about the project. My interest reaches back to those days when the sequel to my beloved Freelancer was abandoned. I'm not sure what Lonestar would have delivered but almost everything I've seen and been told concerning this crowdfunded game has kept me here in a state of anticipation (and sometimes anxiety). It certainly has nothing to do with my financial contribution to the project. I've spent far more on CR's dream than I have on the vision that Josh has revealed.

I'm going with the "hiding something really cool" idea. I'm known to be of a Pollyanna nature so that won't surprise many who have taken the time to read my ramblings in these forums. :angel:
Nothing better than an 8 page late reply. That would be the date I turn 18 (And can legally get a passport).
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#194
As a programmer, one of my concerns with this project is feature creep, and being an imaginative type, I have to exercise considerable self-restraint when working on a project. One idea leads to another, and then another, and all of a sudden you've completely side-tracked from your original goal, and ended up with something far bigger, and far more complex.

This is a luxury I can afford with pet projects. There's nobody relying on me to finish on a particular date, or stick to a particular set of features. Hitting walls is one thing, but hitting walls you never needed to hit is another thing entirely.

I do not doubt that LT has a lot of niceties that make it a much more enjoyable experience, but possibly aren't particularly essential to the game or end product. If you've added something in nobody has asked for, then as welcome as it is, if it's pushed launch ahead by another few weeks, you may find people would prefer those extra features at a later stage. As a programmer, performing this cost/benefit analysis is key to finishing a project.

Another problem with big projects is planning. I work in a very loosely organised way, because I just end up under a pile of my own notes, and more time is spent trying to organise my thoughts and ideas than doing any actual coding, or at least way too much time than is healthy for the project. I keep a strong focus on the structural, and leave the fine details of implementation to the actual time spent coding.

It is very difficult not to run with a good idea when you get one, and your immediate urge is to build it now in fear you'll lose it. Or you think "I better write this all down, just in case". Feature creep.

Also, I find that the bigger a project gets, the more well-engineered it must be to keep it manageable. Problems with your approach seem completely inconsequential early on, but you reach a certain point where you realise that you've built a house of cards, and then you have to go back and refactor it. This is one area of programming many non-programmers do not appreciate. I refactor as I go, and make sure my code is robust enough to support what I know is going to be built on top of it at a later stage. No more, no less. That way I build a solid foundation, and good, dependable code. That's just my programming ethic, but it works well for me.
Post

Re: What stage is LT currently at?

#195
tl;dr - I know what I'm doing.
Zanteogo wrote:It's just from this side of the computer screen I remember the years of LT development where every month massive improvements and changes were occurring and it seemed like you were on the highway to completion. It seemed like everything was coming together. I know that in almost all software, it's the way of things, the first 80% is the fastest, the last 20% takes 80% of the time. However, it seemed you had mostly side stepped this trend with your one man team approach, (for what ever reason). I recall the day when your showed us LT, and the AI was doing it's own thing and reacting in it's own way to changes, and I recall in awe thinking, "it's happening".

I know I am arm chair quarterbacking here, I am merely seeking to understand and to remove my ignorance to the whole thing.

However, to me, it was just before the start of LTSL that everything seemed to.. stop. Everything seemed to be put on hold. For the things that didn't, it's when the circular development seemed to really happen. Again, this is all from the prospective from this side of the computer screen of course.

From what you have opened up to us on your dark days, you admitted to getting stuck on circular cycle of not really moving forward. You also informed us that something you had done to LT had to be undone.

During the half of year of LTSL development it was sold as the thing that would cause a massive content explosion. I know your keeping your cards close, however, so I don't know what you have done since, but I am guessing there has been no explosion. If I am mistaken I and truly sorry.
Yes, those were back in the days when I was simply pumping out C++ as fast as I could. And there's nothing wrong with that. I could resume that approach today and have a much lesser form (and non-moddable) of Limit Theory out in a very reasonable timespan (and that's only because I've re-architectured the engine and now know how to prevent monoliths). But that's not going to happen, because, as my conception of Limit Theory matured, modding became something that I simply had to have. I want you all to be a part of Limit Theory's development. I want to see what people can do with this technology over which I have slaved for years. I want to play insane variations of my game that blow my mind. And it's all very much possible. I'm fine with dropping other content (especially content that has crept in since the original design doc) -- it can be appended later via modding. But I'm no longer fine with a non-moddable LT, and this is where the real challenge lies.

About LTSL -- the need for LTSL originally arose from a feeling of uncleanliness that I was getting from the LT codebase. It was taking me longer and longer to make trivial changes and recompile / view the outcome, it was getting harder and harder to figure out what was affecting what, and debugging was becoming more and more challenging. All of these problems were scaling linearly with the size of the codebase, meaning the difficulty of development was, effectively, scaling quadratically with time. This is, perhaps, responsible for how 'suddenly' things seemed to change. Hitting the wall was not a linear-time process, unfortunately. LTSL was nowhere near a mistake, and it did cause a fairly significant explosion in my eyes. A lot of it was UI, but that's because UI is one of the most annoying things in existence to hard-code. Remember the latest market interface? The assets interface with holographic views of each asset? There was also a working ship builder UI that was to be revealed in RTB 3.0, which never happened. Warp rails and their graphics effects, HUD, radar, target information UI, scanner UI, custom AI maneuvers, new station algorithms, new ship algorithms -- all LTSL. LTSL did the job. But it was a temporary 'escape' from the real problem: that the engine had grown too difficult to deal with, hence the need to 'escape' into a lightweight scripting engine.

But, as nothing is perfect, LTSL began to show its own problem -- performance. Towards the end of LTE (the Limit Theory Engine), much of the functionality was offloaded to LTSL in an attempt to fix the 'monolithic' problem. But LTSL struck back with performance limitations. It couldn't handle the intensity of true engine work. We were stuck. I could keep pushing and pushing and pushing in an engine that was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain, I could suck it up and accept the (fairly drastic) negative performance implications of engine work in LTSL, or I could use everything I had learned from both experiences and do something better. Anyone who knows me knows immediately which option I chose.

Here is what I would like everyone to fundamentally understand about Limit Theory:

It has ALWAYS been about working smart -- it has ALWAYS been about creating a beautiful technology in order to enable the creation of a beautiful game.

In the beginning, plenty of people said "no way, not gonna happen with a one-man dev team." And then guess what happened? I developed technology that allowed me to show the progress of a game at quite an impressive rate.

Despite the paradigm to which so many have become accustomed -- "shiny new content!" -- Limit Theory development has always been fundamentally about THINKING and finding the smart way to do things. That's the only way it can happen.

And that's exactly what's happening now. Yes, it has taken time, but I now have an elegant technical solution to both the monolithic engine problem AND the scripting performance problem. That much I will divulge. When this solution has been built up to the point of supporting all of LT's existing content, the content algorithms will simply be transferred over -- no work will have been in vain (not even LTE or LTSL, because they were important milestones for my coming to understand the right way). This time, I can guarantee that there will be no circularity, simply because there is nothing more that I could possibly do, technically, to energize LT's development than what I am doing now (to explain what I mean would be both too divulging and too technical). There will be plenty of back-and-forth in finessing the game, but not technology. One can either choose to believe or not believe me in this regard...it doesn't really matter, as LT will come in time and all of this will be over when the release drops.

^ This is the last time I will provide a justification of my current direction, I'll be keeping this link handy for the future.

And about that 'finding an entry point' thing that someone recently expressed (imagine my joy in being reminded of this dev log) -- it was never actually an issue. It was never about Limit Theory. What I was expressing in that log was a projection of my mental state onto my current task. The reality is that I was degenerating mentally to the point of being unable to see a big picture, to find a coherent strand of thinking to follow, to see LT as the beautiful concatenation of interesting subsystems that don't have an entry point. It is entirely possible to develop each independently, and to perform incremental testing by joining them as they are ready to be joined. I no longer have the problem that was being expressed in this log, because it was not a problem with Limit Theory -- it was a problem with me, and, as you all know, I've been working to fix 'me' since the end of the dark days.

PS ~ I would like to apologize for my tone. I realize it is unusual for you all to see anything but a dapper Josh. Current life circumstances + a change in medical circumstances + the tone of this thread have all summed up to a not-so-cheerful forum demeanor. For that I apologize.
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron