Star Citizen Megathread - Fly FREE thru Dec 14th! Link in OP - Games

[QUOTE=Why485;48119919]I think it looks cool, but I didn't forget the last time this happened with the Mustang. If they would swap it so that bigger engine was on bottom versus top, it would make a lot more sense.[/QUOTE] It could have most of the heavy techy bits in the top half, like the shield generator and jump drive, since the cabin ends about where those side intakes are. The thruster placements still looks inherently [I]wrong[/I], though.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;48120184]i remember when they used to say that all their ships and physics were based in reality then they designed that silly as fuck ship[/QUOTE] To be fair, all the ships are silly as fuck; they've just gotten progressively sillier. The 300i series would become a lawndart the instant they touched a wisp of atmosphere because the wings are at the very ass-end of the ship. The Freelancer and Drake would have to have a massively reinforced chassis to not buckle the ship when they fire engines at an angle. The Aurora is incapable of docking to anything that doesn't have a hangar or a massive extensible docking collar because whoops right behind the airlock are the giant wings(?) of doom. It would also lawndart even harder than the 300i.

Is there anyway fot me to sell my Freelancer MAX package?

Not that its bad to aim for realism in space, but theres enough unrealistic stuff in SC as is that I'd prefer to them to focus on fun designs first. I'm studying aerospace engineering as is and hoping to specialize in the spacecraft side, and let me tell you its not nearly this exciting. So I'll keep my realism irl and offset my bitterness about reality with fun ships in Star Citizen :D Also you could take a look at Rogue System for realistic spacecraft.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;48120951]ksp is reasonably realistic and fun[/QUOTE] KSP isn't a combat game, though. Rogue System is AFAIK the only realistic space combat game there is. I'm pretty happy with the realism of SC; it's like MechWarrior where it has its own consistent rules but isn't incredibly complicated like a simulator. I just wish people would stop talking about how SC the most realistic thing ever, and that the SC artists would take into account the physics when designing their ships so we don't get more unflyable messes like the Mustang or the Herald.

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;48120451]when i backed (which was literally when they started taking pledges) they had promised that ships would be based in reality they made an excuse for the ships they had then by saying "these ships dont use our kind of rcs, its more very small and extremely powerful engines (for current day standards) that help these fly in atmosphere" in the end it's just a case of Deus ex Machina, much like how PlanetSide 2 dealt with its logical problems. it's all [URL="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nanomachines"]Nanites[/URL]![/QUOTE] Where did you see about the ships being based in reality? The only thing i've found that's similar and from the time of the Kickstater is this: [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12741-Physics-Not-A-Dirty-Word[/url] It has some detail on the physics system but it makes no mention that i can see of the ships themselves being based in reality, or about the rcs system being small engines that can be used in atmosphere. I can't find anything else mentioning anything about it.

Keep in mind that only more recently did CIG put physics testing into the whitebox phase so ships don't leave whitebox physically incapable of flying without turbocharged RCS like the Mustang. The big engines on ships are also supposed to be used for Quantum drive more than ordinary flight, to a degree. At least, that's what's been said, we'll see how this design decision pans out. BTW, nightlord, many statements have been made by devs at various times that the ship physics are Newtonian-based and that they don't fake it and fudge the numbers. The idea is that if you load up a Cutlass's ass with, say, 1,000 tons of lead, the Center of Gravity will shift appropriately for that massive addition of mass in one place and handling will automatically adjust, instead of just blipping the mass out of existence/ignoring it and flying with exactly the same flight model and response envelope it had before as you'd get in a more arcade-like game. However, the Mustangs currently have TR4-or-better maneuvering thrusters just to counteract the off-centeredness of the engines, in effect fudging it to work with the physics model. The Mustang Omega's maneuvering thrusters are the most powerful in the game, last I heard. [B]Let's organize an FPCorp thing[/B], because it's been a while and things are reasonably stable for the moment -- and it sure as fuck isn't going to get any more stable and quiet on the servers when the next AC patch and Star Marine drop (possibly not at the same time, putting a double spike on traffic). Rather than "in five minutes", let's go for.. either tonight, or tomorrow. I'm conscious that today's the 4th, but would anyone (including Inacio) be up for free flight/VS/whatever in, say... 5.5-6 hours of this post's time? Around 5pm PST, 8 EST, midnight UTC. I'm flexible on time, just shooting for something that might not be too late for everyone, and not too early that too many people still have shit to do left in their day. If this time is good for you, rate this post artistic; if you are available to play at a near time and moving the schedule would work better, post and discuss it.

[QUOTE=Saber15;48121000]KSP isn't a combat game, though. Rogue System is AFAIK the only realistic space combat game there is. I'm pretty happy with the realism of SC; it's like MechWarrior where it has its own consistent rules but isn't incredibly complicated like a simulator. I just wish people would stop talking about how SC the most realistic thing ever, and that the SC artists would take into account the physics when designing their ships so we don't get more unflyable messes like the Mustang or the Herald.[/QUOTE] I would say the rules are pretty insanely inconsistent, but that's because we're watching the development of a game that is a few years from release. Shit like the Herald can't even follow the rule of cool because it's fucking hideous, far surpassing our lowest expectations.

For the record I like the Herald being an ugly little fucker* and the changes to make it symmetrical have made it less aesthetically-pleasing-ugly and more actually ugly. Sort of an uncanny valley of ungainly ship appearances. As it gets closer to the edge it looks bad, and then awful in the valley, and then it gets quirky and fugly-cute all of a sudden--and CIG is pulling us back away from beautifugly. I was sold a concept ship that was asymmetrical, ugly, and built for specific purposes, stop making it look better damnit. :v: * Not so little, as it turns out, as I keep having to remind myself by looking at the door -- the Herald seems to have grown during whitebox as CIG struggled to fit everything inside of it, as mentioned in last AtV's Ship Shape. It looks closer to the front half of a Freelancer in size.

It's not aesthetically pleasing ugly though. It IS ugly ugly. From a design perspective, there seriously isn't a single element that plays well with any other element on the entire vessel.

I don't think every ship should be made pretty by any means. If every ship is pretty or made to look really good it can sorta kill variety if you ask me. I find the Herald rather endearing although I wish it was more asymetrical. Thats part of the problem with the recent beautification run on EvE ships, a lot of asymmetrical designs that were unique and visually distinctive have been made more attractive, yes, but they are now a lot less distinctive then they were before. Sorta blend with everything else. Caldari has this the worst. No forgiveness for what they did to the exequeror either

fuck you guys I love how the Herald looks :( [editline]4th July 2015[/editline] its pretty in a very soviet way HERE IS BIG ENGINE, HERE IS SEAT. YOU GO FAST NOW.

It'd be a bit silly if all ships were space beauty pageant contestants, you need the occasional malformed mutant or blunt brutalist bucket to balance things out. [editline]4th July 2015[/editline] That ship reminds me somewhat of G-Police, so perhaps nostalgia is currently humping my eyesockets.

People always say that about the soviet military aesthetic but I've never undestood, because I've always thought it WAS a pretty aesthetic.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48122058]fuck you guys I love how the Herald looks :( [editline]4th July 2015[/editline] its pretty in a very soviet way HERE IS BIG ENGINE, HERE IS SEAT. YOU GO FAST NOW.[/QUOTE] I give it four [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6RkFggCicM"]Putins[/URL]. Nazdarovya. *glug*

I'm still a little salty considering I fell in love with the wacky as fuck asymmetrical design but I do still quite like the look of this new Herald. Bring it on I say!

[QUOTE=nightlord;48121432]Where did you see about the ships being based in reality? The only thing i've found that's similar and from the time of the Kickstater is this: [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12741-Physics-Not-A-Dirty-Word[/url] It has some detail on the physics system but it makes no mention that i can see of the ships themselves being based in reality, or about the rcs system being small engines that can be used in atmosphere. I can't find anything else mentioning anything about it.[/QUOTE] The ships [I]are[/I] based in reality in the sense that all the physics that drive the ships in Star Citizen are completely real with real forces and physics backing them. The problem with that, is that CIG keeps designing ships as if they were meant for a Star Wars like universe where physics don't mean jack. What consistently ends up happening is you get a ship that is as unflyable as it would be if you were to build it in real life, so then they have to fudge all the numbers (such as making thrusters ultra strong) so that they can get their poorly designed brick to fly the way they want it to.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;48121499]I would say the rules are pretty insanely inconsistent, but that's because we're watching the development of a game that is a few years from release. [/QUOTE] A lot of the inconsistency (i.e. the fuckin' stupid overpowered RCS thrusters on the Mustang) stems from the rules basically being made up on the fly, and from artists not being engineers. I think towards release we'll see more consolidation, with ships receiving small modifications to make them consistent, like moving the silly Mustang thrusters down so they are in-line with the ship, or tweaking the positioning of RCS thrusters so that ships behave properly. I think it's the Hornet that rolls from side to side when strafing because the thrusters aren't equally positioned with respect to the center of mass?

overpowered thrusters is due to them wanting to make the ships less drifty, not the out of alignment main engines with stuff like the mustang, all they have to do is move the centre of mass up or the actual point of thrust from the thrusters down - the thruster effects don't necessarily match what's happening in terms of force and yeah, everyone wants the ships to be more drifty now, but they were when AC came out and everyone complained then as well

[url]http://dereksmart3000ad.tumblr.com/post/123125564079/interstellar-citizens[/url] So Derek Smart wrote a really interesting piece about Star Citizen today and I think he's made quite a lot of good points, and even his ego-stroking serves a purpose. (is this a sign of the apocalypse?) Has quite a length introduction though.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48124547][url]http://dereksmart3000ad.tumblr.com/post/123125564079/interstellar-citizens[/url] So Derek Smart wrote a really interesting piece about Star Citizen today and I think he's made quite a lot of good points, and even his ego-stroking serves a purpose. (is this a sign of the apocalypse?) Has quite a length introduction though.[/QUOTE] tl;dr if I couldn't do it, no one can

Yes, it's pretty clear that you actually didn't read the article.

[QUOTE=Hammernipples;48124585]Yes, it's pretty clear that you actually didn't read the article.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Article]This game, as has been pitched, will never get made. Ever.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=End of article]So I really do hope and pray that RSI can pull this off, because if someone like me, with all my experience and expertise on this very same subject, and who has spent half a lifetime trying, can’t do it without sacrificing something (visual fidelity, performance, scope etc) in the process, and they, with all this money and star talent can’t do it either; then it’s safe to say that it simply can’t be done. At least not in our lifetime. That is all.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=krail9;48124567]tl;dr if I couldn't do it, no one can[/QUOTE] I wonder who didn't read the article now? Hahaha, oh wow, he's repeating this bunch of FUD bullshit: [QUOTE]The RSI devs, have all the same insurmountable problems that I have encountered over two decades of chasing this whale, and which have not only led to their delays, but also the recent announcement that the first person module was hold came as no surprise to me. [B]I have it on good authority that it’s not even on hold, but that [U]they’re probably not going to finish it[/U][/B] because a) it won’t work within the current framework b) it wasn’t in the original design as spec’ed, since it has ballooned to what it is today. So naturally, it’s the first thing to go, or put on indefinite hold while they figure things out.[/QUOTE] Credibility = 0 [QUOTE]Remember, the game, first and foremost, is a space combat game, not a first person combat game.[/QUOTE] Derek Smart has apparently not paid attention to anything [B]Cloud Imperium Games[/B] (which he calls Roberts Space Industries) has said for over a year. [QUOTE]For me, I already know - for a fact - that they can’t build this game they’ve pitched, and which I was looking forward to someone making. So all I’m looking forward to now is getting my $250 worth of gaming. And right now, a hangar, and Arena Commander, after three years of development, and now eight months late, is not something that inspires confidence in me. To the rest of you, I only have this to say: Stop buying virtual items for a goddamn game you don’t have. What in the Holy phuck is the matter with you?!? You know how many indie games you could’ve bought, and supported, and been PLAYING by now?!?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=krail9;48124567]tl;dr if I couldn't do it, no one can[/QUOTE] This guy is an indie dev and acknowledges that all of the extra things they've added to Star Citizen have delayed the game significantly... and then is still expecting to hold them to the Kickstarter-era deadline of November 2014? This is cognitive dissonance in action, and this guy's just salty and impatient.

Yes, and he gave developmental reasons as to why it's very unlikely Starcitizen's current scope will ever release as well as personal ones. He does ego stroke a bit but he does so with the intention of speaking from a point of authority and experience on trying to do something similar as opposed to simply saying that no one else can do it because he couldn't. In fact he went over this several times, not sure how you missed it.

Hammernipples, what are you doing? You can't post an opinion that doesn't acknowledge the genius of Our Lord Christ Roberts! You risk breaking the SC circlejerk. [img]http://i.imgur.com/IbAC12p.jpg[/img] Everything is fine, there are no American tanks in Baghdad.

[QUOTE=krail9;48123687]overpowered thrusters is due to them wanting to make the ships less drifty, not the out of alignment main engines with stuff like the mustang, all they have to do is move the centre of mass up or the actual point of thrust from the thrusters down - the thruster effects don't necessarily match what's happening in terms of force and yeah, everyone wants the ships to be more drifty now, but they were when AC came out and everyone complained then as well[/QUOTE] They move the center of mass up and then the ship rotates around that point too. imagine a mustang that rotates around a point above the hull just to make the thruster alignment make sense. The wingtips start whipping around at absurd velocities and everything looks really silly. not "everyone" wants them more drifty. Stronger manufacturing thrusters is my preferred gameplay, but right now the main thrusters look much bigger so people think its weird that the maneuvering ones are strong. The explanation that the big main thrusters are mainly for warp travel or w/e doesnt work as well when they're always glowing too. But there are exceptions to that rule, the gladius for example's main thrusters and manuvering thrusters arent so far off in terms of scale. The hornets arent as bad as you might think either, at least vertically, the belly thrusters on the hornet cant fire laterally which makes things a bit weird. it seems a bit odd though since we already have the off-center of mass main thrusters and stuff, that an explanation like the warp engines being there isnt good enough for many people.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;48125129]They move the center of mass up and then the ship rotates around that point too. imagine a mustang that rotates around a point above the hull just to make the thruster alignment make sense. The wingtips start whipping around at absurd velocities and everything looks really silly. not "everyone" wants them more drifty. Stronger manufacturing thrusters is my preferred gameplay, but right now the main thrusters look much bigger so people think its weird that the maneuvering ones are strong. The explanation that the big main thrusters are mainly for warp travel or w/e doesnt work as well when they're always glowing too. But there are exceptions to that rule, the gladius for example's main thrusters and manuvering thrusters arent so far off in terms of scale. The hornets arent as bad as you might think either, at least vertically, the belly thrusters on the hornet cant fire laterally which makes things a bit weird. it seems a bit odd though since we already have the off-center of mass main thrusters and stuff, that an explanation like the warp engines being there isnt good enough for many people.[/QUOTE] well yes obviously with the mustang you could just move the imaginary point of thrust down, but eg the herald would look fine if they ust moved the CoM up (as if the stuff in the top is heavier than the crew compartment, data modules etc)

I think the fps has really thrown a wrench into the machine.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48122058]fuck you guys I love how the Herald looks :( [editline]4th July 2015[/editline] its pretty in a very soviet way HERE IS BIG ENGINE, HERE IS SEAT. YOU GO FAST NOW.[/QUOTE]I'm not getting those vibes at all. A Hind is a beautiful sort of ugly. [img]http://www.deagel.com/library1/small/2015/m02015020700027.jpg[/img] The Herald is ugly like a gaudy car modification envisioned by a 12 year old. [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a6/95/25/a695253825f68cac402c2f90449c08c8.jpg[/img]

Only good looking Drake ship is the Caterpillar, IMO. It's boxy like a freighter should be, and is asymmetrical but not to the point of stupidity. The Cutlass seems like it was designed by committee. The front third and rear two thirds look like they came from totally different ships. It's the Pontiac Aztek of space.