Star Citizen Megathread v. procedurally-generated deadlines - Games

[QUOTE=Plint;53009687]Well, so far I haven't been able to actually [I]finish[/I] a race, but even so it won't take TOO long to get an Avenger if I can improve a little. I just wish that Star Marine earned REC since that's probably the most fun mode for me right now. Dogfighting is... not an option in the Beta, I've discovered.[/QUOTE] yeah admittedly it is winning races that really rakes it in, lucky for me I have a buccaneer which is actually a pretty competent racer, winning nets about 1200-1500 rec I admit I have no idea how the beta flies, but if you're not already, you can massively improve your lap times with proper application of boost and afterburner. fyi boost improves your manoeuvrability while AB only increases forward engine thrust and speed limit (you can use both at the same time!) essentially you want to rotate to face the next gate (or your optimal driving line to the gate) as soon as you go through the current gate, hold down boost as long as you're able without blacking out. getting lined up ASAP lets you use afterburner between each gate (as long as its not a super tight turn) to maximise your speed - visualise the course as a series of straight lines connecting each gate rather than a smooth curve - this way you're able to use the afterburner often and keep your overall speed much higher than whatever your ship's usual speed limit is of course, you have to find the balance of how much you can afterburn and still make it through each gate

Is it supposed to take 5-10 minutes from the end of the quantum warp point until you reach the planet's atmosphere? I failed my first landing rather drastically but I don't want to spend another 10 minutes reaching the planet. The actual atmosphere entrance sequence is quicker than reaching it. It's as if the quantum warp exits too early.

hit afterburners (shift) to go fast, it only consumes fuel during acceleration so you can just hold it there (you can set it to toggle in gameplay settings for this) and zip to the planet a lot faster

I was afraid you'd say that, since I'm already using the afterburner - max speed of 1210m/s - usually warp in around ~500km away from the planet i.e. 6.8 minutes of afk flying. Thanks anyway.

[QUOTE=jjjohan;53012787]I was afraid you'd say that, since I'm already using the afterburner - max speed of 1210m/s - usually warp in around ~500km away from the planet i.e. 6.8 minutes of afk flying. Thanks anyway.[/QUOTE] Usually when you warp in, the closest point to a moon from you is about 100-150km. If your intended destination is 500KM away, there's usually a warp point close by (6 points around the moons currently) that offer a closer start point for a quick additional Quantum jump.

Is there any use for the covalex shipping crates you find in wrecks? Also this game fullfilled my lifelong dream of being a space garbage man. Cant wait for the starfarer septic tank variant

[QUOTE=dreukrag;53013180]Is there any use for the covalex shipping crates you find in wrecks? Also this game fullfilled my lifelong dream of being a space garbage man. Cant wait for the starfarer septic tank variant[/QUOTE] They did hint at drug manufacturing on planets and in space, so that starfarer may be able to serve a higher purpose.

[QUOTE=dreukrag;53013180]Is there any use for the covalex shipping crates you find in wrecks? Also this game fullfilled my lifelong dream of being a space garbage man. Cant wait for the starfarer septic tank variant[/QUOTE] I've only been able to sell certain crates like ones labeled as minerals or fuel so far. I can't seem to sell or shoot open those yellow ones though. So probably just clutter atm I'd guess.

I think the small drifting crates are just random items to be designated for a delivery, so multiple players can hit the same spot in a short time and not worry over a single respawning crate [QUOTE=MendozaMan;53015648]They did hint at drug manufacturing on planets and in space, so that starfarer may be able to serve a higher purpose.[/QUOTE] I picked up a buttload of stims and distilled spirits at a hydroponics place and sold it for double at levski, good stuff

It's mostly down to how unstable a lot of the PTU builds were. It didn't seem like 3.0 was anywhere near completion. But then the build they released was ridiculously stable in comparison

[QUOTE=ulvemann43;53020593]It's mostly down to how unstable a lot of the PTU builds were. It didn't seem like 3.0 was anywhere near completion. But then the build they released was ridiculously stable in comparison[/QUOTE] the release build was just as unstable as the PTU build, because it was the same build. A day after release they unfucked the interdictions serverside which fixed the most severe stability issue,s though. Racing(only 1 race can be active at any time in any region, enjoy constant erroring out), star marine(numerous gameplay bugs) and arena commander(broken ifcs and mis-tuned hp/shield values) are all nigh-unplayable messes. If they left 3.0 on public ptu and left 2.6.3 live they could have kept the other modes playable, right now the only thing thats a decent experience is PU cargo hauling.

I haven't even really played 3.0 yet because there isn't much I can do in my Mustang and Star Marine is fun but a bit too buggy to invest much time into at the moment.

Is anyone else getting the error code 30007?

[URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/faq/disconnection-codes"]From the disconnection codes FAQ,[/URL] [QUOTE]Code 20007/30007s occur when the game client receives information that it isn’t expecting. A good example is when a bad asset in the game exists, such as when we discovered that Cutlasses were disconnecting all clients on the internal QA server because of an invalid ID.[/QUOTE] Delete your USER folder (inside the SC install folder) and verify files in the launcher.

I tried and it repeats the same error code , I've asked on the forums too but no luck yet!

[QUOTE=Medevila;53020503]For all the drama about Alpha 3.0 being pushed to live early, after a while the consensus seems to be everyone is preoccupied with having fun for once and you have to really search to find people who are upset[/QUOTE]That's nice. I might download it when they get internet in Australia.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;53022549]That's nice. I might download it when they get internet in Australia.[/QUOTE] I'm on ADSL2+ and it's playable.

This may seem a stupid suggestion, but make sure you're on the Delta patcher.

[QUOTE=archangel125;53023529]This may seem a stupid suggestion, but make sure you're on the Delta patcher.[/QUOTE]This is good to know that this is a thing that exists.

So are we all about jumping in on each other's bugs from 3.0? Just posted this one regarding some Z-Fighting in Olisar, along with video proof. [media]https://youtu.be/lyzpFaCjVCQ[/media] [url]https://robertsspaceindustries.com/community/issue-council/star-citizen-alpha-3/STARC-50609-Z-Fighting_on_Metal_Struts_near_Airlock_on_Port_Olisar[/url]

mmmm that good framerate not sure a minor art problem is gonna be a high priority bug every report does its part. I've been testing and reporting a lot of buggers the past few days, hopefully we'll see a patch with the biggest breakers hit by tomorrow

[QUOTE=dai;53026317]mmmm that good framerate not sure a minor art problem is gonna be a high priority bug every report does its part. I've been testing and reporting a lot of buggers the past few days, hopefully we'll see a patch with the biggest breakers hit by tomorrow[/QUOTE] Usually sits between 20 and 30, but recording seemed to kill that framerate unfortunately (the screenshots are all 20+ bar one, which was just a server hitch). While I highly doubt art bugs are high on the list, they're bugs nonetheless. Thanks for reproducing!

as a modeler/artist I appreciate catching this stuff early so it doesn't end up in a billion instances down the line, haha I've been on a bug hunting spree, filed two reports and reproduced (and even found temp fixes/workarounds/causes to report for) something around 50 new items [editline]e[/editline] also the website is finally getting that overhaul that's been lurking in the shadows [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0COEoWrW4[/media]

[video=youtube;p9jLXmeKGIY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9jLXmeKGIY[/video] Was playing some 3.0 then this happened. Ship was actually fine, I shut it down and went back to the bed to log out. FPS was probably below 10, think there was some interdiction jamming, then it bugged out. Sound goes crazy and likes to cut out and desync hard, so that happened as well. Overall the game still is a stuttering mess for me. My PC should be more then enough to play it, not that graphic settings actually improve or worsen the stuttering. Ping should also not be bad, no clue where EU servers are located but being in Germany it should be down to 25ms if they are in Germany or max like 50ms to any other major server locations in Europe. Not sure if somebody has an idea on what to try to reduce the stuttering. Also the stuttering makes everything sluggish and makes controls lagging and/or oversensitive.

How much RAM do you have? Also, graphics settings don't really matter at this point unless your PC is barely capable of running SC at all; the bottlenecking is happening in memory leaks and server performance problems. Terrible stuttering in 3.0 is typically caused by two things: running out of physical RAM and having to go to disk swap (because of the memory leak), and laggy servers having too much to keep track of. You can't do anything about the latter except try a new server and hope for less server lag. CIG are working on improving server performance. Check your system's memory usage if the game starts to hitch like that; if you're running out of physical RAM and using swap, there are slight adjustments that can help a bit.

When you luck out and get on a nice instance the game runs smooth as butter for me. I've also found the game for some reason runs really poorly on the first launch. Restarting after getting into PTU always does the trick.

Finally I can start playing. Getting fiber was the best thing I've ever done

I think this should be posted here: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1588635&p=53030730&viewfull=1#post53030730[/url] Go to original post because this one misses quotes: [QUOTE=nightlord;53030730]Update on this: CiG have now replied....and are asking for pretty much all of this to be dismissed, including evidence why, and even the[I] actual GLA.[/I] I've had a quick look over some of the documents available and it's seems that they claim that the majority of Cryteks claims are a result of them using misinformation to try to get anything they can, and that by not including the GLA and using very biased wording they (Crytek) were trying to make themselves look as if they were in the right by omitting the [I]actual [/I]information that showed that they weren't. While i haven't read it all, it seems Crytek's claims are baseless. [url]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta[/url] Slight summary of some of reply to the two major points from the original complaint: [U]Cryengine usage[/U] The GLA did not say they have to "exclusively" use Cryengine. As i suggested before, it gave them an [I]exclusive right[/I] to use Cryengine, not forcing them to use that and only that. Page 9 of Exhibit B: [url]https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mPjfXrjAf9RUq3_5cJgd-hF-I5XoCQta[/url] The statement in the GLA also includes the words "which right shall be sub-licensable" (which Crytek omitted in their claims) and then later on explains what that means - they can let other developers use that right to use Cryengine to help them - [I]very clearly[/I] showing it meant "you have an exclusive right to use the engine" and not "you must use the engine exclusively". So they're allowed to change engines and do not have to use Cryengine. [U]Squadron 42 as a seperate game[/U] They agreed to let this happen as part of their GLA; The GLA specifically says they aren't allowed to do something separate as in [I]doesn't use the same launcher[/I]... It says "Star Citizen" itself is defined as all the content that uses the launcher, which means SQ42 is allowed and is part of the game, as it is part of the launcher. The GLA only mentions they can't make something seperate as in entirely unrelated to the game [I]and [/I] doesn't use the same launcher/game client as Star Citizen. Exhibit C, page 25 Exhibit B page 9 Things like the copyright being missing seems to be solved by not even using the engine anymore and there's also that they're trying to hold RSI to the contract despite the contract not even being for them, it was for CiG only. Those were two of the main aspects of Crytek's claims, and it seems CiG has done nothing wrong there. This situation wasn't quite as simple and in Cryteks favour as people thought. ...Apparantly the GLA also includes a part saying they aren't allowed to seek damages from the other, so Crytek would be in breach of the GLA :v:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=creec;53031474]I think this should be posted here: [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1588635&p=53030730&viewfull=1#post53030730[/url] Go to original post because this one misses quotes:[/QUOTE] As i've said before, it really seems this is just the result of Crytek being desperate. Now we have more complete information and the GLA, it's pretty clear the vast majority of Crytek's claims are baseless. It seems the whole thing is just a complete mess where they tried absolutely anything even though they knew that wasn't right - omitting information that clearly showed CiG didn't [I]need[/I] to use CryeEngine, the game [I]clearly [/I]being defined as something that allowed SQ42 to be separate in the GLA yet they still said it wasn't allowed, the part about copyright not being there now being irrelevant because they're no longer using Cryengine, even the stuff about how they said the lawyer who had worked for them was ignoring the conflict of interest (which is supposedly a [I]big[/I] thing to accuse them of) had to be partially redacted with an updated complaint etc. Then there's the one about how they're trying to sue RSI despite the contract/GLA only applying to CiG, and how the GLA even says they aren't allowed to attempt to claim damages from the other...which Crytek are trying to do. Like CiG said, that they didn't even include the actual GLA to backup their claims in the first place was shady enough. This whole thing just seems like something that comes across as from an failing company that really needs to find money anyway it can. What's just as absurd is the initial reaction from people when reading about this whole event in the first place. A lot of people jumped straight to "Well CiG are obviously in the wrong here, no way they can defend against this" and "If they say the GLA says it, then the GLA says it!", falling for it entirely - the complaint seems to have relied on leaving out the[I] actual information[/I] and using biased wording to make themselves look in the right. Some were saying don't make any judgement on this without a CiG response and the GLA or at least more information, but so many were just ignoring that idea and waving it off with stupid responses like "Well they aren't going to make this up, the GLA obviously says this so they're going to win!" and "You really think they're doing this just because they're desperate? That doesn't matter at all!". That other thread is full of posts from people who seem [I]excited [/I]that CiG were being sued and like they thought there was no way the things being said weren't absolutely 100% correct because "Crytek are desperate, so what? Everything Crytek said must be true anyway, it's [I]obvious [/I]CiG are in the wrong here, you just won't accept that!,". I don't know if those were the usual trolls who were just looking to find any excuse they could try to make the game look bad and thus ignored any the explanations about how it all wasn't so much of a clear easy win for Crytek or if they were just ignorant, but either way it turns out the GLA [I]doesn't[/I] really say what they claimed it did and this whole thing wasn't such a simple situation in Cryteks favour, like some thought. Even with the stuff like the "Exclusivity" for Cryengine some wouldn't listen when it was explained how it probably meant [I]exclusive right[/I] to use the Engine, not exclusively having to use that engine and nothing else - CiG says that usage of the word wouldn't even be allowed, but some people wouldn't hear any of that when it was offered as an explanation before. It was just so absurd how many were being ignorant to the possibility that this wasn't such a definite thing and that maybe [I]not entirely making up their minds about who would win from a complaint that is only extremely one biased side of the story and when we didn't have the actual contract/GLA to see what it really said[/I] would be a good idea. It's somewhat annoying reading some of the initial posts about it, really.

I'm not entirely sure why you're posting this here instead of on that thread. Particularly since you seem to be addressing some specific posters.