Star Citizen: Big MoMA's House

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Star Citizen: Big MoMA's House

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

MeLKoR posted:

On a long list of stupid ideas this was one of the dumbest. When you start going into "realistically model ship mass and thrusters" and have stuff like cargo and damage affect that it's when you commit yourself to having a group of no poo poo honest to god rocket scientists on payroll or things will inevitably end up like this

Say what you will though it's an amazing 'gently caress this I'm playing something else' simulator

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:31

Ash1138: Sep 29, 2001; Get up, chief. We're just gettin' started.

MeLKoR posted:

On a long list of stupid ideas this was one of the dumbest. When you start going into "realistically model ship mass and thrusters" and have stuff like cargo and damage affect that it's when you commit yourself to having a group of no poo poo honest to god rocket scientists on payroll or things will inevitably end up like this

And all that crap has to be fixed for Squadron 42. I mean gently caress how do you do QA for missions and scripting and whatever when there's a good chance the physics will go apeshit at the slightest provocation?

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:39

revmoo: May 25, 2006; #basta

Paradigmata posted:

Just realised I made the mistake there to think of "Star citizen" = SQ42 + Star Citizen.

I wouldnt claim somethign else than Star Citizen being tried to sell as an fullblown MMO

The names gently caress me over sometimes, for example when they sell SC + SQ42 on a homepage called RSI, while RSI is a fantasy manufacturer of spehsships.

They have about as many names for games as they do companies...

Squadron 42
Star Citizen
Arena Commander
Star Marine
Social Module
Persistent Universe

That's a lot of "games"

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:41

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

Xaerael posted:

I don't want a �700 barrier of entry every time I want to play a stupid new videogame.

My 6950s lasted me 5 years, until I changed to a 980Ti this summer. You can also get away with a much cheaper 970/290x if you play at 1080p, and the only thing that even warrants upgrading these days is the GPU, unless you have something pre-sandy bridge i7. Which is 5 years old now and still works fine for any game.

And that's if you have to have everything on high, which is dumb. Set some things to medium or low, you won't even notice much difference but get much better performance.

Except in star citizen, but we already established star citizen is a very special snowflake. Don't buy SC, don't buy a PC for SC.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:44

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

EminusSleepus posted:

The reason why the scythe took so long to be flyable is because of its asymmetrical shape and their physical programmer is losing pubes trying to make it fly. So a big NO to your comment about SC is building ships like how NASA build theirs. As I have said SC is more into Hollywood and shoving in realistic physics with it.

Fakedit : also the Hollywood + realistic thrusters simulation is the main cause why the cutlass was/is an utter poo poo to fly. gently caress YOU BEN!

That's the other thing, they claim the ships move like poo poo because of all these problems with thruster placement but not even NASA could make the Scythe fly. Just look at that poo poo, there is no way on god's green earth that ship's mass and thrusters are being modeled.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:46

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

I'm surprised that thread wasn't immediately moderated into the Concern subforum so that the poll could be used as a justification for closing the whole thing.

Selling ships post-release (outside of starter packages) is probably one of the easiest ways CIG can gently caress up what little good will they have left with their community and make it perfectly clear they're exclusively out to gouge them left and right. Especially since it would require them to also make them gameplay such that spending $250 on a Constellation is worth it due to the hundreds of in-game hours it would save. You're probably looking at around 125 hours played to earn a Constellation if CIG is going with something on the level of a super-grindy F2P like MWO or WoT.

I think most in the community are slowly coming to grips with this very notion but don't want to face the reality of the situation; let alone admit it.

Also, given the costs of Google Compute hosted instances, along with their brain-dead patching strategy - not to mention the overhead for four worldwide studios - let alone the fact that they don't have a framework worth monetizing (e.g. you can't buy credits and there's nothing to use them on anyway), they have to make money somehow, and on an on-going basis. Assuming they actually survive 2016.

And the fact that croberts is now trying to use SQ42 as the new source of revenue, he's in for a rude awakening given the number of citizens (and shiticitizens alike) who are already entitled to it, thus limiting the room for growth. Aside from the fact that we all fully expect SQ42 - if it ever ships - to be a lovely mess that every single module has been thus far, thus further reducing the revenue stream from any new buyers of the dream.

I'm going to say it again, 2016 is going to be very interesting.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:47

eonwe: Aug 11, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

MeLKoR posted:

That's the other thing, they claim the ships move like poo poo because of all these problems with thruster placement but not even NASA could make the Scythe fly. Just look at that poo poo, there is no way on god's green earth that ship's mass and thrusters are being modeled.

this is honestly the worst ship design ever

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:48

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

imperialparadox posted:

This is exactly the problem with Star Citizen. They wanted to have "realistic" thrusters and physics, but they designed the ships first while only being concerned with how they look and not giving a thought about the actual engineering choices that would go behind why and how a ship's thrusters are laid out, so CIG basically ended up with a complex mess of a flight model that they still have to cheat by adding "ghost thrusters" and arbitrarily deciding the values for the outputs of the ship's thrusters.

When they ended up at that point it just makes the design look rather foolish, because they could have just eyeballed everything and dictated ship handling based on role to better effect.

I don't believe their flight dynamics is tied to the thrusters as has been depicted.

CryEngine3 has a very primitive vehicle controller, which they've now adopted and customized for space craft. So all they've done is developed a lovely flight dynamics model in which motion input is still tied to the entire vehicle "body" but which they have further custom designed to favor directional based thrust vector control. In short, think of their space craft as that buggy in the hangar. Same template, but instead of wheels + engine, they're using thrusters + engine in order to do the same thing. That's why their flight dynamics - every iteration - sucks and favors rudimentary (mouse control) controls.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:51

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

They showed the Idris tour back at CitCon. We also know from Jared's leak back in the spring that they are making a lot of progress on the Vanduul assets, and obviously there's all the mocap. A good example of what I would expect to see from SQ42 can be found in the tutorial level within Arena Commander. I agree that not showing the journalist anything is pretty bad though, at the very least put up a little demo mission so the guy can pew pew and land on a carrier or something.

This was the second journalist they toured and talked about the game but didn't show anything.

:gary:

^{OPEN DEVELOPMENT}

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:52

Paradigmata: Dec 23, 2015; Dissolved

Truga posted:

Except in star citizen, but we already established star citizen is a very special snowflake. Don't buy SC, don't buy a PC for SC.

I can already see the "Star Citizen Ready" stickers on Alienware. The hardware companies would be the real winners if they manage to sell hardware on the pretext of one single pc game.

Star Wars: Rebel Assault not included

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:53

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

MeLKoR posted:

That's the other thing, they claim the ships move like poo poo because of all these problems with thruster placement but not even NASA could make the Scythe fly. Just look at that poo poo, there is no way on god's green earth that ship's mass and thrusters are being modeled.

I remember reading Sci-Fi were they actually went apeshit with asymmetric ship designs like this one after they developed a means of thruster-less non-newtonian propulsion. If someone told me the Scythe used a non-newtonanian gravity emitter instead of thrusters, I'd believe it. :v:

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:53

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Truga posted:

No, no it wouldn't have been. The last time making a 3D engine from scratch was anything resembling a good idea was somewhere in mid 2000s, which is why the only publicly available engine still around that doesn't suck major dick is the one that started even before those times: UE4. Cryengine was a decent contender till fairly recently, but seeing how they pretty much went bankrupt and got mostly poached by CIG, it's not anymore.

Unity is finally catching up with the 3D technology these days, but then even Unity is like 10 or 11 years old now. And its performance can hilariously quickly grind to a halt due to the way it's built. Then there's 2 or 3 proprietary engines that are trying to scratch the same level of ~fidelity~, but those are kinda off the table for an outsider project.

And the rest is garbage. Not that the games look bad - IMO Trine, an indie series made on an in-house engine, are one of the best looking games around, and they perform great on a wide range of hardware. Making games look good is easier today than it ever was, with newest dx11 and opengl additions giving you functions you can just call that'd take years to develop 10 years ago. And that's a great thing.

But technologically speaking, the games are nowhere near what people can do with UE4 today. So no, making a rendering engine from scratch today (or 3 years ago, for that matter) is an act of lunacy. Unless you feel like sinking a billion dollars and 4 or more years into r&d, and then have your 3d renderer about as sophisticated as what Cry/Unreal can do today, by which time everything the better engines do today is going to be a part of the D3D toolset anyway.

This is, of course, all speaking about the graphics. As for the "game" part of game engine, anything you can pick up today is going to be poo poo for a space sim. So pick a 3D renderer you like (in 2011, there was no UE4 yet and unity was still the "build cheap&simple indie games" engine, so you pick Cry), rip out the pre-packaged game logic and plug in your own.

Of course, much like everything else with star citizen, this is neither the first nor the last time someone has had to do this kind of poo poo. Game engines are made for RPGs and FPS games, sometimes with basic vehicle support. If you go too far outside the provided box, the engine will poo poo itself.

A really good example is KSP. A giant part of KSP's early development was creating game logic that doesn't explode your rocket just because you went too fast/far/both. Would it benefit from having its own, specialized engine? Possibly, the physx solution they use for part interaction that came with unity is trash. Would it delay the project by another 3-5 years and/or make it look dated? Yes. Would it greatly increase the risk of getting the game stalled in developer hell? You bet your rear end it would.

On the other hand, Unity 5 updates have added some poo poo in that'll make KSP run a good bit better than it already does, once it gets updated to the newest versions.

Yes - it is. Which is precisely why back in 2010 I made the decision to just license middleware and build a custom engine from it, rather than - once again - build an engine from scratch. Of course the limitation of that is LOD doesn't benefit from all the custom code I had written in the past and which powered my games. e.g. LOD is the first game I've ever made, that was "scene/level" based, instead of having a seamless (space & planetary) world.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:54

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

shrach posted:

Bear in mind that the accounts filed are for the period ended 31 December 2014.

As suspected Roberts Space Industries International Limited was a non-trading company in this period. It has both assets and liabilities of �23,578. This is most likely all notional items, probably inter-company balances relating to professional fees that have been paid by the other companies but technically relate to this one.

Worth noting that Roberts Space Industries will not be non-trading for the year ended 31 December 2015 since they started taking receipt of the sales in the webstore in early 2015. How will they account for acquiring this business? Good question.

-

Foundry 42 had debtors of around �1 million (presumably one of the US companies and relating to invoices for work done on Squadron 42, although this could have implications for their status qualifying for UK video games tax relief). They had short term creditors of around �1 million. This is likely to include some running expenses but could also include inter-company loan accounts, where expenses were paid by other companies. The company had �650k in cash.

The company spent �500k on fixed assets. This required cash and that in the bank probably came from one of the other companies and would explain why they owed ~�1mil to a related party.

The profit and loss acount for the period showed a retained profit of �850k. This figure would be after taxation and any dividends. Given they were below the ~6mil turnover threshold it shows the bare minimum profit margin they were charging one of the US companies was ~20% but in all likelihood a lot higher.

-

Cloud Imperium Games UK Ltd is the parent company of those two and another non-trading company in this period. As suggested they have investments of �440,001. The �1 is obviously RSI Ltd which would leave �440k attributable to the 100 Foundry 42 shares that were obtained from the shareholders of that company. On the face of it, paying 440k for a company with �650k actual cash and profits of �850k doesn't seem unreasonable. Although the same controlling party is both issuing and in receipt of the same invoices in his different companies and the one setting the profit margin on the invoices that has created this notional value.

CIG does have a share premium value of �198k. This is where say the price paid to the company for �100 share capital is higher than �100. Eg: when you start a company you might issue 100 shares at �1 each on day one. A few years later the company might issue new shares but it would make no sense for them to pay the nominal value of the shares if the business has grown. You would not normally have a share premium account if it relates to the initial incorporation shares, which this does. (You would just issue 198,000 �1 shares instead). Likely a simple accounting mistake somewhere here.

This company owed �250k and this again is probably relates to professional fees accrued or paid by one of the American companies for work done that related to this company.

The year ended 31 December 2015 would be a more interesting set of accounts for a number of reasons. At December 2014 the actual cash pile was (presumably) still sloshing around in America. The filing requirements will change for the UK group of companies to be a full audited set of accounts because turnover thresholds would be met during a full year of trading for Foundry 42, especially for the group when you then add in that of the sales that commence in RSI. Not sure anyone expects the companies to make it to the end of 2016 though.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08815227/filing-history

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08882924/filing-history

What's interesting to me is the shares being transferred or sold back to the company. That's one way of taking money out of the company. As a private company, this doesn't raise any eyebrows at all. And only the backers or their attorneys and govt. officials will bother to delve in that if/when the whole thing collapses.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:57

DoctorStrangelove: Jun 7, 2012; IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT MEIN FUHRER!

Asymmetrical spaceships wouldn't be that dumb if you keep the thrusters aligned with the real center-of-mass. Which the Scythe does not do.

DoctorStrangelove fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Dec 28, 2015

# ? Dec 28, 2015 18:58

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

DoctorStrangelove posted:

Ssymmetrical spaceships wouldn't be that dumb if you keep the thrusters aligned with the real center-of-mass. Which the Scythe does not do.

gently caress this thruster-bullshit. Now I want a space sim simulating the most exotic bullshit you can think of. Why isn't there a game where I can fly a death ship dragged through space by a artificial black hole projected in front? :mad:

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:00

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

I've been playing with Leap Motion and VR, behold the power of virtual reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG17Betpt_g

It really is great stuff, brilliant. It's like living in the future and it's shagikshkvhalshvsaiahg

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:00

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Bait and Swatch posted:

Star Citizen: Development is so open nobody can see anything

quote:

the only question: GOTY 2016 or GOTY 2017?

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:02

Beer4TheBeerGod: Aug 23, 2004; Exciting Lemon

MeLKoR posted:

That's the other thing, they claim the ships move like poo poo because of all these problems with thruster placement but not even NASA could make the Scythe fly. Just look at that poo poo, there is no way on god's green earth that ship's mass and thrusters are being modeled.

I am sure something is being modeled. I am equally sure that what is being modeled holds no bearing with reality. CIG not only puts the cart before the horse, it puts the whole convoy.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:02

Bait and Swatch: Sep 5, 2012; Join me, Comrades
In the Star Citizen D&D thread

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

CIG not only puts the cart before the horse, it puts the whole convoy.

And sells the horse poop as spaceships

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:06

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Scruffpuff posted:

My theory on this is based on the state of mind of the person in charge. How do they self-identify?

Chris Roberts self-identifies as a gaming wunderkind - in his mind, he's a success. Ironically enough, if he'd stopped with Wing Commander, this would be closer to the truth.

Since he's a success, and successful companies have several offices in multiple countries, filled with IP-themed bric-a-brac, he built that first. Teams, "cons", mo-cap studios - the works.

Compare/contrast with Blizzard, who started with nothing, made a small number of moderately successful console titles, then hit on the Warcraft IP, and grew from there. All the Blizzcon stuff you see, offices filled with paraphernalia, etc. - all that grew [i]from[/] the success. They didn't start with it.

It's gotta bug Chris that a Warcraft movie is coming out - that wasn't even something that was on their radar for a long time - it became something of a "we have all this money, wouldn't it be cool if..." moment. Again, success and money first, then side-projects and experimentation.

Chris spent 100 million dollars creating the outward appearance of a successful company, without even having a revenue model to sustain it. Because he's a success, and that's what successful people have. Like people who win the lottery and go bankrupt in months with extravagant purchases - their self-identification conflicts with the reality of who they truly are.

It's unsustainable at best. Curt Schilling did the same thing, but he was man enough to admit it. The interviews with him are excellent - the event humbled him and hopefully he experienced some personal growth as a result.

Chris is far, far beyond that kind of help or self-actualization. I'm sure he already has at least 10 excuses for when this goes tits-up, and Derek will be 9 of them.

^this

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:06

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Decrepus posted:

Why are you guys buying the fact that thrusters actually produce thrust? Is there something I am missing here, because last time I looked a ship was flying around without its main engine which had fallen off like a LEGO.

Yeah, it's bollocks. Which is what I just explained here.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=941#post454317713

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:08

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

If I made a space game I would make all the ships look badass and then awesome fun to fly and if anyone ever even asked about physics in any way I would ban them

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:11

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

People have opened up the XML files and checked things out. Sure enough the thrusters do actually provide thrust. It's just that the maneuvering thrusters produce an absurdly high amount given their size relative to the main engine. That's why you can fly a Hornet even with the main engine missing (and in some cases it flies better). The simulation is accurate, it's just accurately simulating something ridiculous.

No, they do not. And no it's not.

Values in data files are no indication of actual engine implementation. Heck, try it yourself. Those files are not encrypted or protected. Just zero out the values for your ship. Then go fly it.

And if they were accurate in any way, shape or form, the loss of an engine would completely kill any form of thrust since they would be non-existent without the engine. I've written several flight dynamics engines. I know these things.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:12

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

D_Smart posted:

No, they do not. And no it's not.

Values in data files are no indication of actual engine implementation. Heck, try it yourself. Those files are not encrypted or protected. Just zero out the values for your ship. Then go fly it.

It would avoid stuff like this in video games discussions

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:13

Jobbo_Fett: Mar 7, 2014; Slava Ukrayini; Clapping Larry

Scruffpuff posted:

Has anyone seen the Triple-A blockbuster hit Kung Fury? I believe you can watch it courtesy of Youtube. Near the beginning, a guy slides a skateboard partway under a car and steps down on it, and the resulting leverage tosses the car high into the air where it spins end-over-end.

Star Citizen is exactly like that.

Star Citizen is like that, sans Hasselhoff

http://gfycat.com/SpryAlertHypsilophodon

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:14

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

Paradigmata posted:

Just realised I made the mistake there to think of "Star citizen" = SQ42 + Star Citizen.

I wouldnt claim somethign else than Star Citizen being tried to sell as an fullblown MMO

The names gently caress me over sometimes, for example when they sell SC + SQ42 on a homepage called RSI, while RSI is a fantasy manufacturer of spehsships.

Star Citzen and SQ42 = two different types of games in the same universe. Not unlike my Battlecruiser, Universal Combat, All Aspect Warfare, Line Of Defense games all set in the same universe and lore.

RSI is a bona-fide real company in existence. They just also happened to include it in the game's lore as a ship manufacturer. Get this: For awhile I was in heated arguments with Spergs arguing with me that RSI was not a company, and that CIG was the only company. Which made me go dig up all the company registration data. The result? Silence.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:18

D_Smart: May 11, 2010; by FactsAreUseless; College Slice

MeLKoR posted:

That's the other thing, they claim the ships move like poo poo because of all these problems with thruster placement but not even NASA could make the Scythe fly. Just look at that poo poo, there is no way on god's green earth hat ship's mass and thrusters are being modeled.

They're not. It's the usual pack of lies so Spergs can keep on dreaming and spending.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:20

Mirificus: Oct 29, 2004; Kings need not raise their voices to be heard

MeLKoR posted:

So, how's the "pay per hour" pool going on the RSI forums? The $3/$4 per hour still ahead with 60%?

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/309546/how-qucikly-should-we-be-able-to-acquire-ships

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:22

Bootcha: Nov 13, 2012; Truly, the pinnacle of goaltending; Grimey Drawer

peter gabriel posted:

What is it specifically about space games that make them impossible to not be complete garbage?

The honest answer is that fun space games operated with mostly facsimile and hand-waving being the core mechanic compromise choices.

It also helped that we didn't know how this poo poo worked as it was presented to us.

Now that we're older, we know better. And we demand fidelity.

Bad fidelity ruins mechanics. Bad mechanics ruin fun. Bad fun ruins the experience.

We ruined space games.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:30

Roflan: Nov 25, 2007

Mirificus posted:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/309546/how-qucikly-should-we-be-able-to-acquire-ships

The kind of grind this implies makes release era Lineage 2 look like modern WoW. Have they willfully forgotten that ships you buy through gameplay don't have LTI and, supposedly, the main cost of a ship isn't even the ship itself but it's components?

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:33

Truga: May 4, 2014; Lipstick Apathy

Lineage 2 was casual trash, people only had to bot for several months to hit level 75.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:34

Mirificus: Oct 29, 2004; Kings need not raise their voices to be heard

Roflan posted:

The kind of grind this implies makes release era Lineage 2 look like modern WoW. Have they willfully forgotten that ships you buy through gameplay don't have LTI and, supposedly, the main cost of a ship isn't even the ship itself but it's components?

It turns out that the $1-2 option is broken and there are many who would have voted for that or even less if they could.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6168911/#Comment_6168911

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6166183/#Comment_6166183

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6168403/#Comment_6168403

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6168437/#Comment_6168437

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:40

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

Bootcha posted:

The honest answer is that fun space games operated with mostly facsimile and hand-waving being the core mechanic compromise choices.

It also helped that we didn't know how this poo poo worked as it was presented to us.

Now that we're older, we know better. And we demand fidelity.

Bad fidelity ruins mechanics. Bad mechanics ruin fun. Bad fun ruins the experience.

We ruined space games.

I wish things were different, I wish space games were good

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:41

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

D_Smart posted:

I think most in the community are slowly coming to grips with this very notion but don't want to face the reality of the situation; let alone admit it.

Also, given the costs of Google Compute hosted instances, along with their brain-dead patching strategy - not to mention the overhead for four worldwide studios - let alone the fact that they don't have a framework worth monetizing (e.g. you can't buy credits and there's nothing to use them on anyway), they have to make money somehow, and on an on-going basis. Assuming they actually survive 2016.

And the fact that croberts is now trying to use SQ42 as the new source of revenue, he's in for a rude awakening given the number of citizens (and shiticitizens alike) who are already entitled to it, thus limiting the room for growth. Aside from the fact that we all fully expect SQ42 - if it ever ships - to be a lovely mess that every single module has been thus far, thus further reducing the revenue stream from any new buyers of the dream.

I'm going to say it again, 2016 is going to be very interesting.

Didn't he specifically say in an interview when they passed some :goatsecx:

goal that (I paraphrase) "now that we have enough funding instead of having to use SQ42 to fund further development we will be able to release SC and SQ42 at the same time"? I've been trying unsuccessfully to find that quote.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:44

eonwe: Aug 11, 2008; Lipstick Apathy

I hope to spend 300 hours to get a midrange ship

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:44

Sarsapariller: Aug 14, 2015; Occasional vampire queen

peter gabriel posted:

I've been playing with Leap Motion and VR, behold the power of virtual reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG17Betpt_g

It really is great stuff, brilliant. It's like living in the future and it's shagikshkvhalshvsaiahg

Is Leap Motion better now? I got it when it first came out and it was basically Star Citizen: The Peripheral, janky and completely useless at actually recognizing my hands outside of brief 5-second periods of lucidity.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:45

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

Bootcha posted:

Now that we're older, we know better. And we demand fidelity.

It's such a weird desire considering that just about every piece of science fiction media that features actual-for-serious spaceship dogfights just more or less flips Newtonian physics the bird. Even programs like Gundam that go out of their way to explain why you even have dogfights in space end up loving with the physics to achieve something that's artistically presentable. Trying to cater to people who want ultra-realistic physics simulations and to people who want fun, action-oriented gameplay results in a dog's breakfast of garbage that will satisfy neither side, as this game is rapidly proving.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:46

Decrepus: May 21, 2008; In the end, his dominion did not touch a single poster.

D_Smart posted:

Yeah, it's bollocks. Which is what I just explained here.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3748466&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=941#post454317713

In the Sandi Learns to Fly show (was there more than one of these?) the guy showing her how to fly even says "if you turn you will see the thrusters fire and if you continue to turn they will stop firing since in space there is no air resistance to stop your turn" which is nonsensical obviously. They continue to fire the whole time he is turning which disproves exactly what he is saying and if they continued to fire, like they did, he would continue to turn faster and faster, which he did not.

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:50

MeLKoR: Dec 23, 2004; by FactsAreUseless

Libluini posted:

I remember reading Sci-Fi were they actually went apeshit with asymmetric ship designs like this one after they developed a means of thruster-less non-newtonian propulsion. If someone told me the Scythe used a non-newtonanian gravity emitter instead of thrusters, I'd believe it.

In that case the UEE is completely hosed. But wasn't the UEE supposed to be Space Rome and the Vanduul the Space Vandals? How come the space barbarians are so far ahead technologically? And do they place those fake thrusters on their ships for nostalgia's sake? Why do their space magic ships still handle like rear end?

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:31

peter gabriel: Nov 8, 2011; Hello Commandos

Sarsapariller posted:

Is Leap Motion better now? I got it when it first came out and it was basically Star Citizen: The Peripheral, janky and completely useless at actually recognizing my hands outside of brief 5-second periods of lucidity.

Nah it's poo poo.
It feels like people are constantly trying to fudge it to work and the hardware itself is crapola.
When it does work (slow deliberate movements) in VR it can be really good, so in that way it's not like SC as even when SC works it's utter bland poo poo

# ? Dec 28, 2015 19:53

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > Comedy Goldmine > The Goodmine > Star Citizen: Big MoMA's House

«‹›6665 »