Star Citizen Megathread v. procedurally-generated deadlines

[paindoc]

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;52625679]It's not easy. I can say that from experience.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/gBnMruH.gif[/img][/QUOTE]

I once tried to get something similar working in Space Engineers, only for the thing to flip over as soon as I disengaged the ground clamps. It then proceeded to fall on my head. And so I never visited gimballed thrusters again.

Working on the flight programming stuff at CIG sounds fun though, in an intensely challenging-nearly-masochistic fashion.

[thisguy123]

SO I had the most trippy and yet believable dream about this game.

It was a youtube video documenting methods for effectively assaulting capital ships with a lesser amount of raw fleet power.

The first tactic involved a stealth bomber flying in, launching a torpedo to cripple the engines while some fighters did a strafing run of key systems leaving the ship dead in the water.

The second tactic involved a group of commando's sneaking in, planting charges on key system's getting out and blowing them causing a chain reaction that rips the ship apart.

The LAST one was known as the "Facepunch Bangbus Approach" Which involved a small shit cargo hauler flying BACKWARDS at the ship with its cargo hatch open and a tonne of (possibly naked) facepunchers crammed in the armed with railguns. They were all gibbering, whooping a hollering like mental patients, one of them was micspamming some "Allah Ackbar! D&B remix and I distinctly remember someone honking a bike horn over the radio as they all lined up their railguns and opened fire on the poor unsuspecting capital ship.

Needles to say I woke up laughing.

[Cloak_Raider]

[QUOTE=Why485;52624577]words about thrusters[/QUOTE]

very good post

average joe gamer here with passing interest in this game if it gets finished

i used to play the shit out of IL-2 sturmovik, and it was great because each plane would handle differently - some would handle poorly but that's because you either loaded them up with too much, or it was historically accurate that they handled like shit and you knew what you were getting in for

it was great for each plane to have a unique feel to flying it, intricate ways of handling, and i have a high tolerance for things handling badly

so keep that all in mind when i say that if the ships in this game handle poorly/with noticeable delay on all actions because gimbles are moving around or whatever, i simply won't buy it - if they have to put unrealistic elements in the flight model to make it fun to fly, then they need to do that

IL2 was great because it felt realistic but also was fun to fly

if you have to choose, you pick fun to fly every time

gimbles moving around is cool and all but that will make me think "wow!" for 5 minutes or so, and then the shoddy flying system will make me think "this game is ass" for the rest of the time

[dai]

[QUOTE=thisguy123;52636714] The LAST one was known as the "Facepunch Bangbus Approach" Which involved a small shit cargo hauler flying BACKWARDS at the ship with its cargo hatch open and a tonne of (possibly naked) facepunchers crammed in the armed with railguns. They were all gibbering, whooping a hollering like mental patients, one of them was micspamming some "Allah Ackbar! D&B remix and I distinctly remember someone honking a bike horn over the radio as they all lined up their railguns and opened fire on the poor unsuspecting capital ship.

Needles to say I woke up laughing.[/QUOTE]

You can bet we'll be planning railgun broadside action with the caterpillar, though for effect we should try to jam everyone into the nose and concentrate fire forward

[thisguy123]

[QUOTE=dai;52637002]You can bet we'll be planning railgun broadside action with the caterpillar, though for effect we should try to jam everyone into the nose and concentrate fire forward[/QUOTE]

Every attack run has to begin by opening a channel to the target ship and playing some horribly bass distorted music to them as we open fire.

[I]"This is Albertross delta niner tango reading you loud and cle--"[video]https://youtu.be/KjVLZLsW0do[/video][/I]

[dai]

[QUOTE=thisguy123;52637074]Every attack run has to begin by opening a channel to the target ship and playing some horribly bass distorted music to them as we open fire.

[I]"This is Albertross delta niner tango reading you loud and cle--"[video]https://youtu.be/KjVLZLsW0do[/video][/I][/QUOTE]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrbaPi5J0Eg[/media]

[elix]

[video=youtube;y_jBzimhxDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jBzimhxDk[/video]

[video=youtube;fmF3tTeEaZQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmF3tTeEaZQ[/video]

[video=youtube;ZsXnFzYu10k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXnFzYu10k[/video]
Gamescom demo presentation with footage captured straight from the machines instead of the venue cameras, now with the big 30-minute restart edited out and most of Chris' stage direction modulated into near-incomprehensibility from them trying to filter it out.

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16092-Far-From-Home-Cooler-Quest"]This week's lorepost is about coolers.[/URL]

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16093-Q-A-Origin-600i"]Origin 600i Q&A[/URL]

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/16088-Subscriber-Flash-Sale"]The Khartu-al is up for a flash sale for subscribers for this weekend only, now until the 4th.[/URL]

No Happy Hour or Citizens of the Stars this week, CIG'll be fully recovered from Gamescom and back to normal next week.

[elix]

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/qWcXlf8.jpg[/IMG]

Origin X1 concept art WIP shown at the unofficial-but-attended-by-CIG SC event at DragonCon.

[Moose]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdS8q2_d76o[/media]

[elix]

[video=youtube;VieWni3pq90]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VieWni3pq90[/video]

[video=youtube;vhn0AADnYrY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhn0AADnYrY[/video]

[video=youtube;Qoa38oaosW4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qoa38oaosW4[/video]
Now with a small extra something.

[IMG]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/media/8omr8pm67tu59r/source/Flair_201709_schematic.jpg[/IMG]
This month's subscriber flair is schematics for the Herald and Prospector.

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16109-Something-Every-Tuesday-Argo-Hero"]This week's lorepost is a talk show interview with a hero who evacuated the crew of a downed Polaris from the middle of an all-directions Vanduul assault with nothing but an Argo MPUV.[/URL]

[ithon]

in before the hezzy-fit
[url]http://archive.is/vUuwY[/url]
"After investing $45,000, Star Citizen guild gives up, gets a refund"

[elix]

[QUOTE=Ithon;52682432]in before the hezzy-fit
[url]http://archive.is/vUuwY[/url]
"After investing $45,000, Star Citizen guild gives up, gets a refund"[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://my.mixtape.moe/guadeh.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE][Update: Cloud Imperium spokesperson Dave Swofford tells Ars that "a lot of the information was fabricated" in the Reddit post discussed the below. Swofford says the account in question was issued an individual refund of $330, not the $45,000 claimed in posted screenshots and videos which Swofford says do not reflect actual complaints requests logged by the company. What's more, Swofford says the refund was handled "in a timely fashion" with "no extended debate over whether we should."

Ars regrets the omission from the original story, which appears below.][/QUOTE]

Additionally, the OP of [URL="https://archive.is/ko6oo"]the Reddit thread (archive link)[/URL] [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/6zy3ko/just_refunded_3_completionist_packages_for_a/"]deleted their Reddit account after CIG contradicted the story.[/URL] Because when you're holding onto the truth and it's challenged, nothing proves your story right better than killing yourself.

And that had "undeniable" proof including a gif showing a page refresh of the total. Of course it's impossible to forge webpages using a local webserver, a self-signed certificate, and localhost tampering, right?

[ulvemann43]

People makes up stories on the internett to get popular, more news at 12.

[ithon]

good thing I didn't give ad rev for the faulty article I knew elixwhitetail would give more insight into while I was too lazy to do it myself.

[elix]

Someone on Reddit also pointed out that the dude's CS ticket screenshots (which Swofford claims were massively doctored, boy who's shocked by that?) have the UI appearance of [I]normal[/I] CS ticket interactions. Concierge tickets don't look like that, and why is a dude with an account worth an alleged $45,000 not submitting a Concierge ticket for faster response?

Oh wait, $330 doesn't give him access to Concierge. :v:

Here's the best part:
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/ecGuXIQ.png[/IMG]

There's a goon basically admitting that they have no way of knowing if any single claim of a refund is real. It's nice to see them admit in their own words that their sub has no credibility. Beet_Wagon is one of the better goons and is actually capable of admitting when someone gives him good arguments against his points.

I wonder how late AtV is going to be this week. Supposedly in addition to burndown we're going to get a look at the mission system.

[video=youtube;YKiGcOQ4wAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiGcOQ4wAE[/video]

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16116-OPNET-Family-Reunion"]This week's lorepost is about cleaning up Terra's violent impoverished ghetto, The Blocks.[/URL]

[elix]

[video=youtube;FhywXu8vsuM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhywXu8vsuM[/video]

First person we see in the mission system segment is Tony Z. As it should be.

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/q2YKC9W.png[/IMG]

Now, this drop is significant, but there are two reasons for it, as explained in the burndown segment:
- Some bugs were eliminated from the must-fix-before-Evocati list by being solved, and
- Some have been moved out of immediate must-fix status

This second thing may raise eyebrows, but it does have a reason. Erin Roberts has tightened the focus on bug-fixing and the initial scope of Evocati testing, where the Evocati will be directed to test specific aspects of 3.0 and not touch others (because they have what were listed as must-fix bugs last week). This allows CIG to put the Evocati to work and open the tap on public testing feedback for what works while the bugsmashers take care of the next major feature on the polishing stone. Once those bugs are smashed and QA greenlights the fixes, CIG pumps that build out to Evocati to test the now-"safe" additions while they get to work on the next batch of bugs, repeat until ready for Wave 1.

For this reason, the number of bugs that actually must be fixed before the Evocati can touch the build [I]at all[/I] has gone down dramatically, but there are now multiple phases of must-fix for the Evocati to cross before we get to wave 1 PTU, because a lot of those bugs weren't actually fixed. :v:

[Vioxtar]

Are there any news on orbital mechanics? I heard somewhere unofficial that as of now planets won't be rotating their host star, does anyone know about this?

[elix]

[QUOTE=VIoxtar;52700548]Are there any news on orbital mechanics? I heard somewhere unofficial that as of now planets won't be rotating their host star, does anyone know about this?[/QUOTE]
Currently, they don't.

In 3.0, orbital mechanics is coming: planets will rotate on their axes. It's slightly unclear if star orbit (planets rotating around the system's star) is coming in 3.0.0 or in a subsequent update, but at/around Gamescom 2017 CIG confirmed that orbits around the parent star are intended.

Chris Roberts discussed it while discussing how the planet orbits will change slowly over time (as opposed to the planetary spin that sets up night/day cycles) and this will affect trade routes because fuel economy will change when a planet on your trade route is right next to the jump point OR the opposite end of the star system from the arrival spot.

So, eventually if not soon.

[dai]

recently in the derelict ship talk [url=https://youtu.be/I_rSQGavuiI?t=15m26s]they showed a day/night cycle on a planet's surface[/url] so rotation is at least an immediate feature.

personally I'm not sure that it's worth the effort to simulate orbits on anything that isn't absolutely FLYING and should be difficult to approach. It'd probably add another layer of container nesting to anchor a ton of content to planets' positions, but any semblance of realistic orbit would be all but imperceptible in gameplay terms

[Dwarden]

realistic orbital mechanics will allow create interesting views
(available only at certain positions of stellar objects within star system)

the next thing to take in mind are dynamics to trade / flight routes (both players and AI)

this may even get way more interesting e.g. for pirates
because some trade line may get closer to this dense asteroid field in certain timeframe only etc.

so i really hope they can slowly integrate as much of those mechanics as possible

[Squeegy Mackoy]

I have an inkling that that ain't gunna. Planets might slowly move about, but you wont be plotting trajectories to slingshot around them or anything.

Chris might complain that two ships orbiting in opposite directions can't stop for a WWII dogfight and then he'll go and add a few zeros to the maneuvering thruster forces again.

[Dohman]

You also need to keep accesibility in mind, if you add the requirement of plotting realistic courses through space, the userbase size is reduced dramtically, which is alright sometimes, but you need to consider the fact that CIG is making a AAA game with a not-so-AAA budget, so they need as large a userbase as possible.

[Vioxtar]

tbh I'd be completely okay without true ship to planet orbital mechanics, as long as crashing into a planet when thrustless/damaged will still be a thing

[thisguy123]

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;52703275]I have an inkling that that ain't gunna. Planets might slowly move about, but you wont be plotting trajectories to slingshot around them or anything.

Chris might complain that two ships orbiting in opposite directions can't stop for a WWII dogfight and then he'll go and add a few zeros to the maneuvering thruster forces again.[/QUOTE]

to be fair ww2 dogfights is a lot more fun and visually stimulating that sticking your nose in the radar screen and watching the lines cover each-other.

[elix]

The planetary orbits are designed to be something that changes with the seasons -- you shouldn't notice Crusader moving at all during any given session of play, but Crusader might be close to ArcCorp today and way distant from it in six months, so there will be "seasons" of higher profitability for trade routes between them because of the reduced quantum fuel expenditure between trips. It's intended to be a subtle change over time, not something you notice because Fuckmoon IV is orbiting Planet XYZ every 10 minutes and landing requires a racing ship just to keep up with the atmospheric boundary.

Planet rotation should be more noticeable (to give realistic day/night cycles) but should still not be an active hazard for landing. The orbital physics shouldn't be moving so fast that simple gameplay like landing on a planet should be hindered.

[QUOTE=VIoxtar;52703631]tbh I'd be completely okay without true ship to planet orbital mechanics, as long as crashing into a planet when thrustless/damaged will still be a thing[/QUOTE]
If you mean dropping from the upper atmosphere, not only will that likely be a thing (if your engines are shot out in a dogfight after entry, for example), but it'll very likely be fatal. I don't think we've seen anyone just drop from the sky, though.

When 3.0 comes out, I'm gonna fly my Connie into a moon's atmo and then get up from the cockpit and see if the Connie just falls from the sky in a belly flop. :v:

[dai]

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;52703275]I have an inkling that that ain't gunna. Planets might slowly move about, but you wont be plotting trajectories to slingshot around them or anything.

Chris might complain that two ships orbiting in opposite directions can't stop for a WWII dogfight and then he'll go and add a few zeros to the maneuvering thruster forces again.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mu ha ha;52703601]You also need to keep accesibility in mind, if you add the requirement of plotting realistic courses through space, the userbase size is reduced dramtically, which is alright sometimes, but you need to consider the fact that CIG is making a AAA game with a not-so-AAA budget, so they need as large a userbase as possible.[/QUOTE]

dwarden had a bit of a point and didn't make a point of trajectories/calculations, it was about how trade routes may be affected by line of sight/distance between worlds/increased piracy along the route/etc. That was already a planned feature, though it was more aimed toward how major jumps between systems would come and go, not so much how the planets aligned month to month (or slower).

also with how containers work, you wouldn't have to account for the travel of the planet, as your ship and any stations around it will be locked to its own grid, much like a player who's entered a ship, so you're only moving in relation to the planet/station. It'd be doable, but adding another layer of nesting on top of what's already being done would probably be too resource intensive for something that doesn't affect anything for months at a time.

On the other hand, it may be practical to change orbital positioning manually with the star editor like, during a monthly patch when you can guarantee everyone's logged out for a bit, but I'd be afraid of people's spawn location and ships not updating along with their nested locations and suddenly being stranded upon logging back in, haha

[elix]

[QUOTE=dai;52704085]also with how containers work, you wouldn't have to account for the travel of the planet, as your ship and any stations around it will be locked to its own grid, much like a player who's entered a ship, so you're only moving in relation to the planet/station. It'd be doable, but adding another layer of nesting on top of what's already being done would probably be too resource intensive for something that doesn't affect anything for months at a time.[/QUOTE]
This is already an issue that the devs have addressed in 3.0; in one of the burndown segments a bug was covered about how, because Olisar is now set to orbit Crusader instead of just sitting in one spot, the gentle but constant motion of the station means that trying to log in pushes you outside of the station walls while you're in the wake-up animation. I can't remember if the solution was hitting the code with a wrench so it remembers to pull you along with its physics grid, or if it was to give impulse to the player in the code-determined vector. I'm pretty sure it was the former because the latter sounds like a dirty hack. :v:

Presumably, since 3.0 is to include object and player location persistence, this is [I]also[/I] going to cause problems of players not logging in where they were logged out...unless CIG predicted this problem and has the system glue you to a location within the object container, no matter where it gets moved to. Since we didn't see a bug where players log into Port Olisar and end up in deep space because the station's on the oppsite side of the orbit, it seems like the code gracefully handles this one already.

[Daemon White]

I don't see planetary / celestial body orbits being too hard. We already have all the physics transitions and technical shit pretty much done, just get a good constraint / parenting positional system in and it should be set.

[elix]

[video=youtube;tV2qhhtsMA0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV2qhhtsMA0[/video]

[video=youtube;SxOveWI8E0c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxOveWI8E0c[/video]

[video=youtube;wuHBfds1Y4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuHBfds1Y4M[/video]

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/16127-Advocacy-Archive-Hard-Place"]This week's lorepost is about cleverly policing Nyx by not policing it after pirates start raiding Xi'An shipments[/URL] in the wake of the Hu'Xa free-trade agreement.

The theme of Citizencon, lore-wise, has been announced: [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/engineering/16122-CitizenCon-2947-Exploring-New-Worlds"]Exploring New Worlds[/URL]

[Vioxtar]

[URL]https://twitter.com/ChambersArt/status/911185535695192064[/URL]

Down to five bugs.