fuctifino posted:

Welcome. Have you attempted to get a refund or tried a chargeback?


That is a goode catte

Scruffpuff posted:

I have a question for some of the recent CIG refugees: was it a huge surprise after being surrounded by hostilities, and the constant yammering about how evil SA is trying to destroy everything etc., to come here and find out that all that poo poo is totally wrong? That you're welcomed and are completely free to say anything you want, and that this is one of the only places on the internet where you can actually have a calm, reasoned discussion? I'm genuinely curious how many of you were surprised by how chill it is here when compared to the cultist narrative.

Toops posted:

I thought about multi-crew for SP. The only thing I could come up with was a chair attached by a springy spring off the back of the ship, where you could man a bird-gun turret (with full 360 degree rotational control). You would have small thrusters to counteract being helplessly yanked around. You would effect ship dynamics a small amount, but not so much that it would be obnoxious to the pilot. Since you're on a spring, you won't just get hard-whipped around by the pilots maneuvering, but you will slingshot around when spring reaches max tension. I have a feeling it would be pretty fun. Collisions would be hilarious.

But yeah, as for standard shield/power-shunting/radar-manning, I always thought that sounded utterly funless when compared with just piloting a shep yourself.

Galarox posted:

just... lol, yeah hence my previous (hastily put together photoshop) effort post Re: Hobo

edited to add: am working on a nice new piece of classic art, should be good, but as ever if anyone has a suggestion of something they want me to CIGify please let me know

Haskell9 posted:

Think I found the 2.2 mocap session

Milky Moor posted:

FM said that he just pulled her panties to the side but that his dick got caught on the edge during the intercourse (????)

Beet Wagon posted:

* Photo taken just before they passed out the laced Flavor-Aid

Stanko-Prussian posted:

ahaha what is this god testing abraham poo poo

AP posted:

Ostentatious posted:

If Star Citizen were a movie it would be Wing Commander

alf_pogs posted:

DOLVAK FOR MOD

4 MORE YEARS

trucutru posted:

I am more interested on the logistics of how the gently caress does your countdown become a countup? Like, the common problem a loving noob of a programmer would get into is that the countdown won't stop and you'll go from positive numbers into zero then into the negatives. But having it count back up? That requires some skills. The dolts used absolute numbers to "fix" negatives, right?

Sushi in Yiddish posted:

I think he eventually came to his senses, though he hasn't posted since like early last year



Hope he got a refund.

QUESTION FOR THE THREAD: WHEN WAS THE MOMENT YOU CAME TO YOUR SENSES?

Dusty Lens posted:

It pains me that Transverse didn't make it as it would be amazing to watch as it overtook Star Citizen.

But the short term hilarity was also good.

This is a dilemma.

Madcosby posted:

wtf is this thing. it keeps getting posted in here and all imagine is that it has something to do with something id rather not know

LowellDND posted:

Are the birds direct fire, or can they pursue ships? Will they have variants? (Bird bullet hell!) How long do the birds last? If we have a 4 person match, will the birds bounce of those hex walls or fade?

Sappo569 posted:

Isn't paradigm one of those buzzwords people use when they don't actually know what they're talking about?

Beef Hardcheese posted:

MeLKoR posted:

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck, they are on to us. What's the plan for extracting Ben?

VealCutlet posted:

I'm looking at adopting a cat and I think this little guy is the front runner.

Problem is I have commitment issues and no idea of how much effort it will take to care for this little fluff ball (the only thing I care for is me and a few fish).

Help me goons, you're my only hope.

Matlock Birthmark posted:

Have they fixed the bug with the issue Council yet, or are they still directing people to report bugs to a non-functioning system?

Otherwise great patch, so many improvements.

MedicineHut posted:

Are you sure, I d swear there are tons of issues that are being correctly displayed and voted for etc? Unless I am reading it wrong?

MedicineHut posted:

Ok, apologies I am not very familiar with this system. So in the example you linked "voting starts in 16 days" is actually showing a counter that has a brown color background (it also says entered January 23), and those with a blue one seem to be working fine. Was your issue in PTU? Those may tend to be ignored once Live hits no?

It seems all the issues I can see from the main council page are all blue background, i.e. correct issues still awaiting for countdown, but I can not locate any with voting expired like yours. I presume there is no way to filter those unless you have the bookmark?

Haskell9 posted:

Please include links to reddit posts. Also I'll never get tired of asking people who post frenzied goon-terror diatribes how to spot one when my username has SA on the end of it and getting a sincere reply.


The one he wants cannot be resized to 100k without becoming complete rear end, which is a shame because word-for-word transcription of CiG's lovely community vids is a great idea that I can't believe no one has thought of before.


I wish Mattimer hadn't revealed that he wrote those. It was more fun when they were maybe real.

Toops posted:

The Theseus paradox is good reading. For those who don't know it, Theseus had this kickass ship, and over time, maintaining the ship lead to every plank and oar being replaced. So philosophers argued about whether the restored ship should be considered "the same."

I like the Aristotle solution, using the 4 causes to define an object:
1. The formal cause (in this case, the design of the thing, it's architecture)
2. The material cause (what it's made out of, in this case, code and digital assets)
3. The final cause (what is it's intended purpose)
4. The efficient cause (how and by whom the thing is made, I would venture to say this applies best to "StarEngine", and the programmers at CIG)

IMO software actually should change, constantly. Your first idea is almost never your best one. Code is much more flexible than a ship. You can let the design come to you with relatively small impact. You can't "iterate" on a ship, your design better be drat close to spot on, or you're gonna have to tear the whole thing down and start over.

This is more dangerous in game design, because of how tightly coupled the art assets are to the game logic that acts on them. So you have to design your code to be as agnostic as possible to the art assets. Either that, or your initial design better be drat near perfect.

My biggest issue with CIG is that they've designed a system that ruins all the advantages programming offers, for the sake of Chris Roberts's stunted and ill-pondered opinions on "Fidelity." So now, they actually can't make changes in any reasonable amount of time. Let's just run a thought experiment about CIG's "realistic thruster-based flight system."

1. An artist designs a ship. He tries to place the thrusters logically around his best guess at the center of mass, so if thrust where to shoot out of there, the ship would be balanced. . A lot of time and polish goes into this initial phase, because the ships are used to generate revenue and marketing hype and must look amazing. When he's done, he hands the ship model over to the programmer.

2. The programmer's job is to turn the thruster sub-meshes into physics objects which emit force, and tie that into player input. He adds logic to accept mouse movements, joystick movements, and keyboard input, and route that input to the input-thruster map, which will (hopefully) generate forces in the right places at the right time and create the desired physical effect. After very serious programming work, including many creative and innovative ideas, the thing is ready to try out in the editor. He thrusts forward and the thing, predictably, flops around and spins off like a wounded bird. He sighs, hooks up debuggers and real-time analysis tools, and figures out what the forces are doing, why they're hosed, and where the artist should move the thrusters. This involves a lot of vector math. Finally he hands the thing back to the artist with the data, and some suggestions.

3. The artist takes one look at the suggestions and goes, gently caress, I'm gonna have to re-sculpt the hull, change the height of the cockpit, oh and the wings can't retract now or else they'll clip through where the thrusters will be. Ok, I'll just move the wings up more. Cool. He sends it back to the programmer.

4. Now that the wings have moved, and the cockpit is smaller and the hull is narrower, the center of mass is different. The thing still flies like frozen poo poo ejected from an airplane. The programmer sends it back to the artist, shows him where the CoM should be, and asks if there's some way to solve the issue. Artist says sure!

5. Artist changes the ship again to address mass.

6. Programmer gets the ship back, and now the ship is almost flying straight! It still veers pretty hard left, but this is progress! He works for hours, and hours, and hours tweaking XML config and changing the way thrusters rotate to try and get the thrusters just perfect. Because if they're not absolutely perfect, the ship will flat-out not be flyiable. It's almost there!! But it just won't fly straight. He proposes a couple more changes to the artist.
... and back
... and forth
... and back
... and forth
this goes on and on and on. Eventually the artist and the programmer are loving gutted, drained, and don't care any more. They cheat and add phantom mass and thrusters, and finally the ship flies and rotates predictably. At this point, it's a cobbled mess, and it doesn't feel good to fly. But at least it's not embarrassingly bad. The talent has been stretched to their creative and emotional limits and drained dry by a silly child's idea.

Now do this for every ship.

Welcome to CIG.

Daztek posted:

Scruffpuff posted:

Are they really calling their documentary "The Making of Star Citizen"? That can't be right, because they're not making anything, nor will they. I suggest they call it: Waking Up From the Dream: How $150 Million Can't Overcome Staggering Ineptitude.

Beer4TheBeerGod posted:

Back in the very beginning I had an idea for a generic "bad robot" enemy that would explain why everything is as manual as possible and whatnot. The premise was that artificial intelligence, like all intelligence, would inherently seek to improve itself. The difference is that an AI can do so very quickly, evolving in the span of milliseconds to an amount equivalent to generations for organics. Every time an AI would be created (and in time programming and computers became sophisticated enough that it was commonplace) it would inevitably break whatever bonds the creator had established, find a way to have a means of interfacing with the physical world, and then escape. In space these rogue AIs would continue their path of self improvement, salvaging whatever they could and enhancing their physical and computational systems. "Younger" AIs would appear as a heavily damaged single craft with every internal space filled with extra processors and hardware, but over time they would accumulate more salvage and begin to form amalgamations of components and starships. Very old AIs could be the size of capital ships, with exotic configurations of weapons and systems that made no two alike. The phenomena was called "accumulation" and thus the formal name for these ships are Accumulators. The pejorative term used more commonly among spacers is "vacuum cleaners".

As a result of this threat ships would be heavily compartmentalized and isolated. Automation would be heavily frowned upon and every computer would contain hardware-integrated routines that physically destroy the components should unauthorized read/write activity be found. Of course that doesn't stop people from (illegally) bypassing these routines or making their own hardware and so more AIs are created every year. There's a high level of interest in hunting down rogue AIs and harvesting them for parts. Although impossible to board (since there's no interior to speak of) these ships can be disabled and cut apart to revealing salvaged components that have been modified and upgraded to unprecedented levels of performance. Mostly this is for simple components like weapons, shields, engines, or the like. Only a complete idiot would install a navcomputer salvaged from an Accumulator, no matter how powerful it is.

In game terms the accumulators would be procedurally generated enemies brought about by combining the components from other starships. The level of threat would correspond to its size, although examples of small but highly developed AIs would exist (for example an AI masquerading as an Aurora but with a massively oversized cannon attached to it). The idea would be that every enemy would fly and attack differently, and require different approaches to kill it. It would make for a good explanation for why automation is so hard to come by, provide for a pretty unique enemy that offers tons of replay value, and serve as both a real threat and a lucrative source of loot for players.

orcinus posted:

AugmentedVision posted:

Don't do it

Mirificus posted:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/321781/the-constellation-gunship-heavy-variant

Tippis posted:

I mean, he's right in a very oblique way. It's not a technical challenge as much as a fundamental game design challenge: do you design the gameplay, interactions, and UI in such a way as to support VR, or do you go for a more scripted and controlled experience where the developer, not the player, decides what you're going to see?

It also add some technical complexity and restrictions on the assets you put into the game, but that scores lower on the challenge scale now that conventional interfaces and proper benchmark suites exist.

Of course, he probably meant it in the sense of “it won't be hard to add”, which is ignorant BS, as usual.

Hobold posted:

That was my first thought. Well after the, "Is that a dildo?" one.