Star Citizen Megathread - Star Marine isn't doomed after all! - Games

I disagree. It's trash and it looks like it was made by a 12 year old. Why can I select barrel when there's a single ammo feed? Why does it look like a pump action? Why is the front end so big if the ammo is at the back? Why is there a magazine release in-front of the trigger guard? Why is the ejection port so far behind the action - how do casings even get there? Why are there wires hanging off the side? It looks like something out of Wolfenstein TNO, but it's taking itself completely seriously.

Maybe its meant to do more than one thing

[QUOTE=paindoc;51204703]Does anyone know why using that little offline mode trick with Cheat Engine causes tons of assets to be replaced with red "REPLACE ME" spheres? I really enjoy just fooling around in that mode, so its unfortunate that things are broke. My internet is unreliable at best, and all the storms here mean that its likely to go down too (along with power, but I want to hope that maybe that will stay up lol) The new consoles for crew members are awesome though. Ships and stuff still work, just random assets are broken. I'm going to walk my dog then get back to exploring other ships, Vanguard was super neat to look at and Starfarer is a must-see ofc[/QUOTE] What guide did you follow ? I tried with this : [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/4a6xp4/psa_is_it_my_machine_or_the_game_how_to_find_out/[/url] But the game seems to get stuck in an infinite loading screen. Edit: Found my problem, it was Cheat Engine 6.6. When I was tried to change "DFM_FreeFlight" to "SC_Default" CE 6.6 changed it to "SC_Defaultight" instead. With CheatEngine 6.5 it works perfectly.

[QUOTE=krail9;51205771]that gun is so close to cool: nice profile, cool but vaguely practical p90 mag, slick ammo counter... but the front end is such a mess [B]I mean what even is this, a magazine fed, pump-action, double barrel shotgun? pick one of those three things[/B][/QUOTE] I agree that the gun is overly complicated, but just to play devil's advocate the DP-12 is all three of those things. I think CIG devs should really take some time to get a basic understanding of how firearms work. I can deal with crazy scifi energy weapons taking on weird shapes, but a normal gun should at least have some pretense of being able to operate.

[QUOTE=Dispenser;51206223]I agree that the gun is overly complicated, but just to play devil's advocate the DP-12 is all three of those things. I think CIG devs should really take some time to get a basic understanding of how firearms work. I can deal with crazy scifi energy weapons taking on weird shapes, but a normal gun should at least have some pretense of being able to operate.[/QUOTE]The DP-12 doesn't let you select barrels though, despite having two magazines it fires both between each cycle so its like two side by side pump actions (afaik). I think what they were going for was something like a KSG or UTS-15 but noone decided to google how they work. [t]http://d10fbf87uv1xiy.cloudfront.net/636/kicerik/39090/273922.jpg[/t] < A stupid space gun that actually functions almost how theirs should.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51204615][video=youtube;rRsF6_lwLas]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRsF6_lwLas[/video][/QUOTE] I think this makes the "No demo? It clearly doesn't exist! They should have had it done months ago or at least a trailer!" people look even more ridiculous. They were working on it for months, it was going to be[I] over an hour long with over 70 characters.[/I] and it was only a few days before Citizencon they realized it wasn't going to be ready as they were working on it right up until then.

[QUOTE=nightlord;51206865]I think this makes the "No demo? It clearly doesn't exist! They should have had it done months ago or at least a trailer!" people look even more ridiculous. They were working on it for months, it was going to be[I] over an hour long with over 70 characters.[/I] and it was only a few days before Citizencon they realized it wasn't going to be ready as they were working on it right up until then.[/QUOTE] I feel both angry and sorry for them. Angry because lolimpossibledeadlines. And sorry because.. well.. impossible deadlines :v:

Imagine working for Chris Roberts.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;51210772]Imagine working for Chris Roberts.[/QUOTE] I imagine it's like working for a George Lucas or Hideo Kojima. Influential ideas guys that are micromanaging control freaks and big believers in the auteur theory.

[QUOTE=Why485;51211207]I imagine it's like working for a George Lucas or Hideo Kojima. Influential ideas guys that are micromanaging control freaks and big believers in the auteur theory.[/QUOTE] Probably nothing compared to Musk.

[QUOTE=Squeegy Mackoy;51205853]I disagree. It's trash and it looks like it was made by a 12 year old. Why can I select barrel when there's a single ammo feed? Why does it look like a pump action? Why is the front end so big if the ammo is at the back? Why is there a magazine release in-front of the trigger guard? Why is the ejection port so far behind the action - how do casings even get there? Why are there wires hanging off the side? It looks like something out of Wolfenstein TNO, but it's taking itself completely seriously.[/QUOTE] Looks like the biggest issue with CIG's design department is that they lack actual engineers or at least people who have a general idea of how physics work. It's like when they started designing ships that couldn't possibly fly correctly and then engineers tried to implement realistic flight mechanics and it simply didn't work properly.

Am I the only one who thinks the big ships don't look heavy when they fly? Please bare in mind I have no experience in physics. [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] Or even played the game

I've caved and bought in on the hype train where can I go to read up on eveything, weapons ships etc etc

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51211281]Am I the only one who thinks the big ships don't look heavy when they fly? Please bare in mind I have no experience in physics. [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] Or even played the game[/QUOTE] They don't look heavy because everything is exaggerated and zippy, but trust me when I say the big ships feel heavy to fly. Not to mention in 2.6 (we're currently at 2.5) they'll be changing all of the flight speeds to be far slower and even weightier.

I really want to see a shift towards more strategic and tactical (slower) gameplay. I loved X3 series for how you manage your angles for optimal turret coverages, while keeping shields in check and managing other ships remotely aswell.

[QUOTE=A Glitch;51211635]I've caved and bought in on the hype train where can I go to read up on eveything, weapons ships etc etc[/QUOTE] It's out of date, but you can check out [URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/192638/the-big-star-citizen-admirer-s-manual-v2-4-215-pages-50k-words-of-almost-everything-star-citizen/p1"]The Big Star Citizen's Admirer's Manual (The Big S.C.A.M)[/URL] for a start. FPS weapons don't have a single repository to examine yet, but [I]most[/I] of the ships in development or in-game are listed in [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/ship-specs"]the ship matrix[/URL] (certain spoiler ships, basically all enemy-specific ships, and all yet-unannounced ships are not listed -- none of these are for pledge anyway). Note that the stats listed [I]may[/I] not be reliable, especially in balance terms (gear loadouts, primarily). There's no [I]single[/I] information repository that has everything available in a convenient way, and this is possibly CIG's greatest failing, even beyond any development delays. However, the Comm-Link section of the site is where new design documents, the monthly reports, and so on go up -- if it's posted to Comm-Links, it's been reviewed by Legal and is official. They generate [I]so much[/I] information that it's a challenge just keeping on top of it all. I've been described as a walking wiki page for SC, so if there's anything you want to know and can't find, ask and the chances are I at least know where to find it or the gist of CIG's attitude to it last we heard. [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap"]The Starmap is also a key element of the site, as it's a portal into the lore.[/URL]

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51211833]It's out of date, but you can check out [URL="https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/192638/the-big-star-citizen-admirer-s-manual-v2-4-215-pages-50k-words-of-almost-everything-star-citizen/p1"]The Big Star Citizen's Admirer's Manual (The Big S.C.A.M)[/URL] for a start. FPS weapons don't have a single repository to examine yet, but [I]most[/I] of the ships in development or in-game are listed in [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/ship-specs"]the ship matrix[/URL] (certain spoiler ships, basically all enemy-specific ships, and all yet-unannounced ships are not listed -- none of these are for pledge anyway). Note that the stats listed [I]may[/I] not be reliable, especially in balance terms (gear loadouts, primarily). There's no [I]single[/I] information repository that has everything available in a convenient way, and this is possibly CIG's greatest failing, even beyond any development delays. However, the Comm-Link section of the site is where new design documents, the monthly reports, and so on go up -- if it's posted to Comm-Links, it's been reviewed by Legal and is official. They generate [I]so much[/I] information that it's a challenge just keeping on top of it all. I've been described as a walking wiki page for SC, so if there's anything you want to know and can't find, ask and the chances are I at least know where to find it or the gist of CIG's attitude to it last we heard. [URL="https://robertsspaceindustries.com/starmap"]The Starmap is also a key element of the site, as it's a portal into the lore.[/URL][/QUOTE] The download link for The Big SCAM is broken. :(

Well, fuck me, you're right. Fortunately, [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20150320210105/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46095085/The%20BIG%20Star%20Citizen%20Admirer%27s%20Manual.pdf"]the Internet Archive remembers.[/URL]

[QUOTE=The bird Man;51211281]Am I the only one who thinks the big ships don't look heavy when they fly? Please bare in mind I have no experience in physics. [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] Or even played the game[/QUOTE] No, everything looks ridiculous because of the way the physics, flight model, and flight control work. Things are supposed to be slowing down a bit, but I doubt they will ever slow it down enough that ships will look weighty or "right". Any perception of "weighty ships" will be totally faked through the way the flight computer tells the ships thrusters to fire. In order to get these ships to fly remotely like they want to, every single thruster needs to be crazy overpowered. Both because of the Gs required to fake an atmosphere, and to make up for poor design from an functional perspective. Star Citizen's ships are designed to look cool, but in a game where how something looks and how its thrusters are arranged actually matters, it only creates mountains of headaches and requires lots of fudging of how the thrusters physically act. It's all a consequence of the conflict of interests CIG has with incredibly realistic physically based thrusters and ship movement, but the desire to make ships fly in incredibly [I]unrealistic[/I] ways like Star Wars ships [editline]16th October 2016[/editline] It's the same situation as the manned turrets and how awful they are. It's somebody saying "hey wouldn't it be cool if..." and then never fully thinking through the implications of what that means and how it'll interact with the rest of the game. Then later, once all the work has been done and works like crap, you just stare at it and say, "Fuck, now what do we do?" I've said this before, but Star Citizen is stylistically designed to be that way and they can't undo that, but they can diminish the effects of it.

[QUOTE=Why485;51211892]I've said this before, but Star Citizen is stylistically designed to be that way and they can't undo that, but they can diminish the effects of it.[/QUOTE] Are you quoting Georges Lucas right now? :v:

[QUOTE=_Axel;51212096]Are you quoting Georges Lucas right now? :v:[/QUOTE] He was a misunderstood prophet.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;51211223]Probably nothing compared to Musk.[/QUOTE] i.e. based on testimonials of fellow "space" engineers: fuck your freetime, fuck your weekends, all hail the emprah

I think a huge improvement to the flight model would be making thrusters have staggered acceleration. So it no longer goes full acceleration on key press, but rather ramps up. Think 0-0.2sec 10% 0.2-0.4 30% 0.4-0.5 50% 0.5+ 100% That way you could still make fine tune adjustments for landing without slamming into the pad and it should make things feel a bit more heavy and deliberate.

I don't think it's really fair to complain about the overpowered thrusters and lack of weight to the ships, the only alternative is E:D spaceboats which is boring and makes for incredibly dull combat also I disagree that having the 'real thrusters + IFCS' is mutually exclusive to this. the issue is simply that the flight model is much harder to get right (but not impossible) [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] though they really need to do a serious check of all ship concepts for thruster practicality, I don't mind wings and silly shapes but it's ridiculous when you get designs that literally have no yaw capability

[QUOTE=krail9;51213195]I don't think it's really fair to complain about the overpowered thrusters and lack of weight to the ships, the only alternative is E:D spaceboats which is boring and makes for incredibly dull combat also I disagree that having the 'real thrusters + IFCS' is mutually exclusive to this. the issue is simply that the flight model is much harder to get right (but not impossible) [editline]17th October 2016[/editline] though they really need to do a serious check of all ship concepts for thruster practicality, I don't mind wings and silly shapes but it's ridiculous when you get designs that literally have no yaw capability[/QUOTE] I think the real thrusters + IFCS could have worked if they designed the ships for it, but they didn't. It would also require them to be a lot more lenient about how slippery they're willing ships to be, and I think it would work better with much lower speeds overall, which is happening on some level. E:D spaceboats aren't necessary for what I'm talking about. E:D is about limiting your turn rate, whereas what I'm talking about is limiting the speed at which you can change your velocity vector. Those are not the same thing. It's not impossible at all, but they've really written themselves into a corner when it comes to ship design. They're aiming for Star Wars in game design and aesthetic, but driven by very realistic physics. Those are two completely different kinds of space sims.

[QUOTE=Why485;51213533]I think the real thrusters + IFCS could have worked if they designed the ships for it, but they didn't. It would also require them to be a lot more lenient about how slippery they're willing ships to be, and I think it would work better with much lower speeds overall, which is happening on some level. E:D spaceboats aren't necessary for what I'm talking about. E:D is about limiting your turn rate, whereas what I'm talking about is limiting the speed at which you can change your velocity vector. Those are not the same thing. It's not impossible at all, but they've really written themselves into a corner when it comes to ship design and aiming for Star Wars but driven by very realistic physics in gameplay design when those are two completely different kinds of space sims.[/QUOTE] that's true but remember the really drifty ships back in arena commander 0.9(?) were very poorly received by the community I believe that, while it looks pretty strange sometimes and it's unintuitive initially, the kind of 'hyperactive' flight model actually has promise and could be the most skillful attempt at space combat yet, bringing back a kind of technical skill that separates good and bad pilots which simply isn't there in games like E:D

[QUOTE=krail9;51214225]that's true but remember the really drifty ships back in arena commander 0.9(?) were very poorly received by the community I believe that, while it looks pretty strange sometimes and it's unintuitive initially, the kind of 'hyperactive' flight model actually has promise and could be the most skillful attempt at space combat yet, bringing back a kind of technical skill that separates good and bad pilots which simply isn't there in games like E:D[/QUOTE] They were drifty because that was the patch where they doubled the ship speeds across the board. Thrusters back then were relatively weak, so when you increase the top speed on everybody they slide around much more because you're carrying so much more inertia. I think the patch after that was when they added the thruster boost and made thrusters more powerful in general. This is where the speed creep began. OG Arena Commander is very different looking back, but in a weird way it also has a lot of the things that I wish CIG would try doing today. The IFCS was fucking garbage back then, so no matter how interesting physics and weapon stats were, the ships were nigh unflyable. Still, that style of combat but with an IFCS that actually works again is what Foundry 42 might be going back to with the planned speed tweaks. I'm [I]really[/I] looking forward to seeing what they've done to the flight model in 2.6. I hate sounding like I'm always shitting on Star Citizen, because I don't hate the game, but they make it way too easy.

It's okay to be critical on the things you love.

despite how not-weighty the constellation seems a lot of the time, I've been dreading the caterpillar feeling like a overloaded cargo ship navigating through molasses. I mean, it pretty much IS supposed to be a hulking cargo ship (probably will be if 5/5 segments are jammed with cargo) but I'm really anxious to see if they successfully change its physics based on the load, and if it feels like a competent pirate frigate and timely rescue operation base

[QUOTE=dai;51216950]if they successfully change its physics based on the load[/QUOTE] That's been a promised part of the design for ages, if not from the start. It remains to be seen if they actually do it, but honestly it can't be that hard if they're calculating the weights of things which they claim to be. It's just a matter of doing it.