|
Hav posted:I can consistently make any car drive worse in any driving game that you can mention. No word of a lie. Give me access to camber and toe, and I can make a performance vehicle into a clown car. Camber isn't even that bad. But toe angles are stuff one shouldn't touch really. Especially because they do completely different things on front and back E: tumbril wheel catte 
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Combat Theory posted:Camber isn't even that bad. But toe angles are stuff one shouldn't touch really. Especially because they do completely different things on front and back Maybe that explains why the rover exploded on the ramp during citcon. It had negative toe. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:40
|
|
C-Bangin' it 
|
Combat Theory posted:UE has built in control for airborne land vehicles. Think GTA style control rotation in flight. He basically gimbal locks. Best practice is to lock vertical look (like 60 degrees or whatever) because as your vertical look angle approaches 90 degrees, tiny horizonal inputs equal very large rotations around the y-axis. e: Yeah, clamping the angular velocity could help, but imo it's a bad smell to rely on that for anything but the most dire of weird collision bugs (and even then, I would want to know those collision bugs exist so I could fix them). If you set up your vehicle physics correctly (i.e. your mass is appropriately scaled), then there's really no situation that could apply the force required to spin the vehicle like that. Toops fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Toops posted:He basically gimbal locks. Best practice is to lock vertical look (like 60 degrees or whatever) because as your vertical look angle approaches 90 degrees, tiny horizonal inputs equal very large rotations around the y-axis. I was strictly referring to the player controlled airborne stuff when I meant the limiting of angular speed and acceleration. I don't know how it ties into the vehicle physics or the newtonian behavior in UE and I would personally deactivate the system aniways. But this is pretty obviously stock UE and was just a small side note from me. UE vehicles are great by the way. Even a software inert person like me can see some sense in the code
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Toops posted:CIG just made $6,000,000+ dollars in one month after not releasing anything for 1.5 years, blatantly lying to backers about progress, and scamming them with moon land in a universe that doesn't exist. Two months burn rate then. 
----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
SomethingJones posted:New Senior Character vacancy added today for LA https://twitter.com/dsmart/status/936641940803719169 ----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
his nibs posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/7gucfp/will_space_land_make_derek_smart_extremely_smug/ I am glad that the Goon plan to shutdown /r/ds so those retarded rear end-clowns spill into /r/sc, seems to be working great. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Graham's heirarchy of disagreement. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Rip each other to pieces you cancerous little twats poo poo did I say that out loud
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
 It's cute that they're saying that I claimed they couldn't do planetary tech. Of course it's false, as I never claimed that. Which is why - as always - they can't find anything to cite me EVER saying that. My commentary about the tech remains as it pertains to the game they pitched. Having half-assed terrain on moons which you need jump points to get to etc, that's ganky as hell, can be done by anyone with access to LY. It's not revolutionary. This argument is something akin to telling someone they can't fly. Then they jump off a balcony to prove it. Yeah, you're going to "fly" alright. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:luckily my life has been anything but normal this year and I've found other hobbies instead of wow like drinking too much and creating vast fud campaigns about star citizen Your fud is the best fud. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
So, is the Anniversary sale over now, last I heard we were near 6 million? I'm actually slightly worried here, that's close enough to for my guess to be 2nd or 3rd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
D_Smart posted:Two months burn rate then. heh read that as bum rate must be the av uncle d
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
Welcome to the
|
Drunk Theory posted:So, is the Anniversary sale over now, last I heard we were near 6 million? it goes until the 4th
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
that's why cats are awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
I never see anyone playing this “first person universe” in anything but the 3rd person camera. I haven’t posted here for a while so let me just catch y’all up on my reactions: Selling land: inevitable lol, didn’t think it would be needed so soon though, their finances must be dire or they’re planning on grabbing as much cash as they can before xmas and then doing a runner. 3.0: like 20% of the cut down features released in a poo poo state, seriously bad even for CIG The funding tracker: hosed up if true
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
hottubrhymemachine posted:I never see anyone playing this “first person universe” in anything but the 3rd person camera. First person results in your avatar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Daztek posted:it goes until the 4th Oh good. Come on CIG, keep milking whales. I don't need a copy of LoD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Drunk Theory posted:So, is the Anniversary sale over now, last I heard we were near 6 million? November 2017 Total: $6,013,417 (-$1,763,350 vs 2016 / -22.7% difference) November 2016 Total: $7,776,767 November 2015 Total: $5,358,817 November 2014 Total: $6,101,678 November 2013 Total: $7,871,634 November 2012 Total: $4,367,877 Anniversary Sale 2017 to Date: $5,190,925 Anniversary Sale 2016 Total: $6,738,501 Anniversary Sale 2015 Total: $5,103,754 Anniversary Sale 2014 Total: $4,055,192 Anniversary Sale 2013 Total: $5,542,215 this november was interesting because citizencon, the other big spending rush, wasn't until october 27th. that meant that the consolidated outland pioneer was still on sale well into november (november 6th)
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Combat Theory posted:I was strictly referring to the player controlled airborne stuff when I meant the limiting of angular speed and acceleration. I don't know how it ties into the vehicle physics or the newtonian behavior in UE and I would personally deactivate the system aniways. But this is pretty obviously stock UE and was just a small side note from me. UE vehicles are great by the way. Even a software inert person like me can see some sense in the code What I'm saying is, capping (aka clamping) angular velocity is a bad idea. Player inputs should be clamped so that 1. The player cannot point the camera straight up at the ceiling/sky (90deg) because you are gimbal locked, and tiny horizontal translations will spin you around like crazy 2. When the vehicle is facing vertically, or airborne, user input is ignored Just configure the rigidbody parameters of the game object and let PhysX do its thing. In the video, it looks to me like the controls are configured to apply torque around the y-axis (up) whenever the player wants to turn. But it's being applied in the game world's opinion of up (world coordinates) not the vehicle's opinion of up (relative coordinates). And we see the result: When the vehicle is facing upward (and thus has way less intertia), it spins like a ballerina because mass is distributed closer to center of mass, and very closely resembles CIG's balsa-wood approach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Haha! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
his nibs posted:heh read that as bum rate
----------------
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
they still need a cool $7m to hit last years funding. but that kinda doesn't matter because each year is basically the same, lol Total in 2013: $28,446,117 Total in 2014: $32,933,205 (14% bump from previous year) Total in 2015: $35,961,202 (8.5% bump from previous year) Total in 2016: $36,100,538 (.4% bump from previous year) Total in 2017 to date: $29,316,923 I bet ya it somehow magically hits around 34 to 35m by year end
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:they still need a cool $7m to hit last years funding. but that kinda doesn't matter because each year is basically the same, lol I predict 2017 will be their best funding year to date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
TheAgent posted:they still need a cool $7m to hit last years funding. but that kinda doesn't matter because each year is basically the same, lol It probably will. Theres sayles to the 4th and a big holiday sale. So you are wrongabout thier funding. Again
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
they've only had one december higher than $5m December 2012: $333,015 December 2013: $2,105,811 December 2014: $3,181,259 December 2015: $5,213,773 December 2016: $3,021,676 December 2017: $6,783,614 (required to make it the best funding year ever) should be interesting
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
SCtrumpHaters posted:It probably will. Theres sayles to the 4th and a big holiday sale. So you are wrongabout thier funding. Again
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Toops posted:I predict 2017 will be their best funding year to date. I predict that user Randi_Gardener will buy 7 million dollars worth of ships with money from RobertsPace Industries, a small start up located in Eastern Europe. Star Citizens will rejoice as funding outpaces last year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
SCtrumpHaters posted:It probably will. Theres sayles to the 4th and a big holiday sale. So you are wrongabout thier funding. Again Depending on whether they're actually throwing out well thought out and planned game mechanics rather than attempting to toss whatever furniture they have lying around onto the bonfire. The 'finance' talk is BS, but it's a thumbnail sketch that hasn't been refuted, but the fun thing is that these things always seem like they're going fine until the doors are locked one weekend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
since october 27th, there's been a sale on every 2 weeks or so lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Y'all only look at half the side of the equation. The important question is not only just how much money is raked in in what time frame. The important question is which effort you make to achieve that level of money. CIG is not making money as a company, they sell "I owe you"notes. The money isn't a financial gain, it's an exchange of funds for technical debt. What matters is not that they raked in money for another 2 months (at best) with this sale. What matters is that they presented unparalleled levels of technical debt to achieve a less successful November than before and overall an at best equal sale. Technical debt to this extend is not inflated linear, it is exponential and the important notice is the rate it which technical depth is inflated in star citizen as a project. The double down without delivering mentality has lead to a project wide bubble speculation and every year cig speculates that the product will deliver a relief before the technical debt that they sell is worthless due to the degrading that they do. When they do these fire sales "but combat theory, their ships go up in price" That's not the point. The point is that the entire funding model as a speculation mass is the degrading good. You have to throw more and more bogus technical debt at it to just sustain funding and at one point it pops. Cig has stretched the limits with the land claim sale. Media picks it up and cultists revolve. It doesn't matter if they made a few million with it because it is obvious that those will not be enough to contribute any significant value to reducing the amount of technical debt that is already there
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Yeah I mean, the whole "CIG is out of cash, look at their burn rate vs. funding tracker!" narrative is just silly at this point. People have been theorycrafting their financial demise for years. Having seen behind the curtain of the oz-like financial engine that drives the software business, there is a no shortage of weird instruments, book-cooking, and raw venture capital available to the savvy CFO. The funding tracker doesn't mean poo poo. It's a marketing tool used to drive advertising and backer confidence. I mean, we all enjoy imagining CIG runnin plum out of cash and going tits up because they're selling dreams of a game they can't make, but the evidence suggests that CIG is financially sound, and I'll continue to believe that until I see any compelling evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Combat Theory posted:Y'all only look at half the side of the equation. The unpayable technical debt argument only holds so long as that debt cannot be defaulted on via feature cuts and/or ostensible implementation in an extremely shallow and janky manner. Luckily, CIG has the world's most gullible and forgiving creditors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
The sad fact of the matter is that Roberts has owned us once again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 20:17
|
|
