Paladinus posted:

Buy me an avatar and I'll send you five billion doodoos via mindchain.

Namefag Edgelord posted:

Aesaar posted:

They also conveniently forget the glass their fighter canopies are made of, which they say is as strong as the hull because while the thrusters need to be individually modeled because of realism, pilot snipes are taking realism too far.

Dark Off posted:

So seraph hows it going i see your wasting lot of money this month. Remember to at least save some for food. Also stop diddling with minors. I mean even if your shorter than average person (your pictures are source of this) it doesnt mean you need to gently caress minors to get laid. And hell why 11 year olds you sick pedophile

Loiosh posted:

Small note here, pilot snipes are not going to be part of the game. That point has been made explicitly by Chris.

Opal posted:

Did anything cool happen

Where is Derek Smart?

Loiosh posted:

Small note here, pilot snipes are not going to be part of the game. That point has been made explicitly by Chris. Everything else you've said is pretty accurate. It's familiar to me to have that experience with someone approaching a sim (or similar issues Bungie had with Destiny) when you roll into a new genre and want to address it but do not have the experience to know why choices were made.

Destiny at 1.0 had a severe loot issue, much like Diablo 3, where the drop rate was low, the rewards were unclear in most cases, and worse, the loot discovery method (engrams) was prone to devaluation when you decoded the engram. An epic (purple) had a chance to become superior (green). With Taken King, they did a great number of fixes in addition to undoing the engram chance to devalue loot. It sounds like CIG is going through the same process. They want to make everything as real as possible, and are now having to overcome or fix issues because of that.

Which explains why most games do not do that. Why, for example, most games you do not sight out of your head representation that other players see in 3rd person. I will admit though that working on the eye stabilization is a neat idea. Valve did some similar work in third person so that NPCs would converge their eyelines correctly. They added a correction so that the NPCs would keep their heads level (as people do), and the eyes would move to converge towards your eyes, as people actually do.

I delight in seeing developers tackle technical issues like that.

Aesaar posted:

I didn't say that right. What I meant is that the idea that the cockpit could be a weak spot is something they think is too realistic for some reason, but removing headbobbing or having animations that aren't perfectly synced between 1st and 3rd person are both unacceptable breaks from reality. They decide "we're going to be realistic!", but then apply realism to stupid poo poo, rather than where it would make sense.

I don't have a problem with pilot snipes. Actually, the cockpit being a weak point would somewhat excuse their stupid cockpit/canopy designs.

AP posted:

Stop talking to Seraph, Jesus, this is a guy that got lured into posting in the bitcoin thread with an entirely predictable result. Now he can't even be slightly interesting while throwing a tantrum in one of the manic phases of whatever mental illness he has, at least Karl still talks about Star Citizen. Seraph is just incredibly and tediously boring now.

Namefag Edgelord posted:

Here's a pic of my catte, Athena, being silly in the window:



Here's a picture of my other catte, Nanaki, being a perv. There's a woman in the way just ignore her and focus on the catte, look for its stupid mischievous face in the bottom left:

AP posted:

Stop talking to Seraph, Jesus, this is a guy that got lured into posting in the bitcoin thread with an entirely predictable result. Now he can't even be slightly interesting while throwing a tantrum in one of the manic phases of whatever mental illness he has, at least Karl still talks about Star Citizen. Seraph is just incredibly and tediously boring now.

Karl post again I miss you.

Namefag Edgelord posted:

Opal posted:

Is the game out?

LastCaress posted:

The FM problems are indicative of a problem that I have been critical of CIG for some time now. CIG (CR) have lots of ideas, the problem is that they are just independent ideas and are not merged together to create a cohesive whole. Many of these ideas run counter to each other, "realistic" physics but "rule of cool" ships, "realistic" physics but physics will be different for each ship( same size engine is different across the ships), delayed ship replacement but short TTK, limited game resources but selling power for real money, just to name a few. But lets look at the FM.

So the reason you use control systems is because you have to, no one wants to use control systems but that is how it works in the real world (its a lot easier to fake it). A PID controller (when compared to a PI controller) is faster, and more precise, but it is much more finicky and requires a lot more upfront work to get stable in a system. While a PI controller is easier to implement and has more tolerance and requires less upfront work. The early AC showed classic signs of being underdeveloped and ultimately underdamped. This got "better" when CIG started putting other controls on top of their original system in order to compensate for the fact they could not get the PID control to be critically damped. This is why the ship are impossible to handle using fixed weapons, and why the thruster values are so high, they are trying to compensate for problems in their PID control system.

So CIG want to have a Control system for each ship, that means each ship will have a different control system with different weighted values, nvm the thruster placements. This means each ship will have to be set up individually just for the stock fitting, then you have to change that control system each time you change the thrusters and other equipment, its a nightmare. The new system is going to make the system easier to set up but it will still require a ton of unneeded work.

So why implement a PID? There is no good reason, it does not make any since when you are talking about the number of ships CIG are creating and the number of changing variables, and because it does not add anything. One excuse that I have seen as to why have a control system is so that when you lose a thruster you will feel its effect. The problem with this is that a Control system is designed to not do that, the most you will feel is that everything will be sluggish, you will have no idea what happened or what you lost, just that you lost power. For a space craft, every action has to be met with an equal and opposite action in order to hold steady. So lets say you apply thrust to pitch up, you have to apply the same amount of thrust down to stop. So lets say you lose a thruster, the action will be the same, its just that now the control system will force more power to be applied in order to achieve the same steady state. Lets say that to make a specific pitch up at the desired rate it takes 10N of force from each nozzle (4 total, with each nozzle capping out at 20N for a max deflection), and the same then for stopping that action. If you lose a nozzle then all that will happen will be that each of the remanding three will apply more thrust, up to the max point. The pilot will not even tell anything has happened, because the controller (if working correctly) will change everything behind the scene so that the operators actions have the same effect, the only effect will be that the max pitch rate will be lower due to the now lower max thrust available.

The idea that you have to fight the controls is also a work of fantasy, because that is not now a control system works. Lets say that the ship is listing to the right and so you have to correct this problem with the stick, well in the real world that would not happen because the control system is able to input the exact same amount as you the operator is doing and the control system will do it faster and instantly. The control system will just compensate for that action and you will continue to fly straight with the stick centered. The idea that you could turn faster in one direction then another also makes no since, as the force applied to stop the faster spin has to be available in the opposite direction to stop the spin. Now if you want to set up a scenario were you can spin faster one direction but it takes longer to slow down, ok but then its the player that is now the control system (again because SC has fixed rates, and speed caps), and is no different then ED's AF system (using this you are the control system).

What CIG are implementing runs counter to what they appear to want flight to be like.

A Neurotic Jew posted:

surprisingly good. 8.5/10

quote:

I would say as far as the UEE’s concern and as far as your point of view, the Vanduul are out for the destruction of humanity. Who’s to say there isn’t some stuff longer term that you may discover that has a bit more backstory to the Vanduul but generally they’re sort of an opposition to the UEE in the same way the Visigoths and the Vandals and antiquities were in opposition in the Roman Empire.

They don’t think or approach things the same way that we do as Humans and so they sort of see us and our planets as weak and as resources to harvest basically. They take what they want where they want.

Loiosh posted:

That's one of those odd cases where they directly stated it was decided pilot snipes would be a problem [related to the fact if you die, your ship can be taken]. I suspect this has a great deal to do with how they wanted the ships to be like WWII-ish designs with big beautiful canopies instead of the more practical designs of something like Enemy Starfighter (mostly bulky simple shapes flown by remote control or by a pilot nestled directly in the center of the ship where they are the most protected).

I mean, as much as it leads to some silly jpegs (Retaliator) I do love how it looks on the Constellation.

Plankalkuel posted:

Nice post. As someone who has his background in Control Systems, their approach is indeed very counter productive. In theory, you probably could actually automate controller design for the ship thrusters in the design pipeline. I bet you, they haven't done that and are, in fact, adjusting their P, I and D values by hand (NEVER DO THIS!). The whole thing strikes me as something that's indeed easy to fake. In my experience, physics simulations and control systems can interact catastrophically (e.g. if the controller is "faster" than the simulation). In the same vain, change the controlled system (e.g. loose an assortment of thrusters) and your formerly stable controller may become unstable, leading to the ship spazzing out. I imagine both these issues to be very similar to general game physics issues, so debugging might get interesting. So why not fake it and get rid of potential headaches.

Aesaar posted:

Actually, the Constellation is a great example of my issues wit their cockpit design.

CIG decide they're making a super pretty game. Then they design cockpits that hide it from you:

Red is either struts or mostly opaque HUD elements.

The Constellation is an extreme case (though not as extreme as, say, the Freelancer), but if they're going for a WW2 style with big beautiful canopies, they failed miserably. Most of them have a bunch of crap obscuring your view of the outside. View to the sides is typically even worse than the front (with is pretty different from real life fighters, WW2 or otherwise).

Loiosh posted:

Could you put the screen elements up as they are in the ship? You seem to not have included them. I'm guessing this is the Constallation v1 (which is currently in revision for a v2 release which I'm curious to see, but do not think it will address this issue).

When I'm looking at a cockpit design, I'm interested in the digetic HUD elements as well as the external view.

Aesaar posted:

Actually, the Constellation is a great example of my issues with their cockpit design.

CIG decide they're making a super pretty game. Then they design cockpits that hide it from you:



Red is either struts or mostly opaque HUD elements. This just isn't good. Externally, it looks nice, but functionally, it's poo poo.

The Constellation is an extreme case (though not as extreme as, say, the Freelancer), but if they're going for a WW2 style with big beautiful canopies, they failed miserably. Most of them have a bunch of crap obscuring your view of the outside. View to the sides is typically even worse than the front (with is pretty different from real life fighters, WW2 or otherwise). Rear visibility is nonexistent almost across the board.

Kakarot posted:

You literally cannot act normal and no, you werent funny at all. So gently caress off.

Namefag Edgelord posted:

...

blueberrysmith posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVHJ6OwTYWc