• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Star Citizen: Chris Robert`s new space sim (the Wing Commander guy)

Page 288 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
Eh, 3.0 is a complete tear down and rebuild. From the flight mechanics, to the UI, to item system, object containers, etc.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,116
428
136
Eh, 3.0 is a complete tear down and rebuild. From the flight mechanics, to the UI, to item system, object containers, etc.
Could you elaborate this? This makes it appear they're redoing most of the work they've already done.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,109
12,925
126
Holy sweet jesus!

Really wish I had not started reading up on the 3.0 release. After spending some time digging through articles I am now aware of just how crazy things got.
Apparently they raised 150 million freakin dollars and still had to take out two massive loans.

Good luck to them, they're gonna need it.
 

SLU Aequitas

Golden Member
Jul 13, 2007
1,252
26
91
Holy sweet jesus!

Really wish I had not started reading up on the 3.0 release. After spending some time digging through articles I am now aware of just how crazy things got.
Apparently they raised 150 million freakin dollars and still had to take out two massive loans.

Good luck to them, they're gonna need it.
Two massive loans?
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,635
106
106
Could you elaborate this? This makes it appear they're redoing most of the work they've already done.
Yes. I wouldn't describe the work as being redone. Enhanced is a probably a more accurate description. For example, all of the ships in the game were "redone" from the perspective of putting the item 2.0 system in place in each of them. The ship models stayed the same, for the most part. But now the inner workings....actually work. The power plants, coolers, scanners, weapons, thrusters, etc. actually interact with each other and you as the player will be able to control and tweak them. Want to fly faster? Route more power to your thrusters. But now your coolers won't have as much power so your weapons will overheat quicker and your IR signature will make you easier to find on a scanner.

Over the past several years, this "system" has just been a placeholder as the built and developed the real thing: item 2.0.

I'm no software developer, but as I understand it, this is how software is built. You repeatedly iterate on the code, enhancing sections that either didn't work previously or were placeholders. Some would call this "rework" but most software developers just call it development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skel and TechBoyJK

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
All in all I thought the schedule report looked pretty good. The diff shows that almost everything is done and this 3.0 is much meatier and polished than 3.0 from last year.

https://www.diffchecker.com/WuZfdSwz

I'd take 3.0 with a max of 10 players per instance if the performance is fine within that range of players.

 

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
5,834
1,189
136
Bad news in the latest schedule report update:
It might not be all that bad. So we only get 10-15 players per instance but as long as gameplay is stable I'm cool with that. I'm actually looking forward to 3.0. I haven't updated in about a year so I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised when 3.0 drops.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,407
44
91
It's bad, because it is and old problem that was supposed to be fixed (along with other network related problems) by the new StarNetwork 1.0 (now discarded - nobody from CIG spoke about StarNetwork in months). At Gamescom 2016, StarNetwork was said to be introduced with 3.0.

May I remind you that they sold ships that have more than 12 crew? In just one ship. And that we are supposed to have massive battles at one point. That point looks farther away as time goes by.
 
Last edited:

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/6rv0av/play_star_citizen_263_pu_offline_without_moving/

It's definitely netcode causing issues. I spun up Crusader in 'offline' mode (empty PU) and it was like a completely new game. No lag, no hitches.. smooth 'crysis 3' like gameplay.

3.0 hasn't even been released to evocati yet, and they're already working on the netcode issues.

It's important to remember that they're still using single server instances. Eventually, the servers are going to communicate, and they'll be spun up in containers dynamically based on usage. So even if for w/e reason they max out a single server load at say.. 20... that's really only an issue until the servers are talking. Then it won't matter as much.
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,635
106
106
It's bad, because it is and old problem that was supposed to be fixed (along with other network related problems) by the new StarNetwork 1.0 (now discarded - nobody from CIG spoke about StarNetwork in months). At Gamescom 2016, StarNetwork was said to be introduced with 3.0.

May I remind you that they sold ships that have more than 12 crew? In just one ship. And that we are supposed to have massive battles at one point. That point looks farther away as time goes by.
I agree. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of communication on StarNetwork. But my recollection was that StarNetwork was supposed to started with 3.0, not finished. And, in reality, they actually made some network improvements in 2.6 (so actually ahead of schedule). But now, we don't hear much. I recall several AtVs back they focused on this issue and it all comes down to one single guy. I think that's the issue: there just aren't many networking experts out there and CIG has only been able to hire a few. The team is really small for such and important roadblock (in my opinion).
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,635
106
106
They removed any date from the Schedule Report.

3.0 live ETA: unknown.
Something odd is going on with 3.0, in my opinion. We were told last week they are adding a lot more polish to the patch than a typical alpha build patch. And this week, one of the items delaying release is that the directors want to add more points of interest on the moons (they felt they were too barren). It feels to me like they want 3.0 to be playable rather than testable like previous patches. I think this is an odd approach at this stage of development. I am more than happy to be an alpha build tester and report bugs on the issue council.....and continue to do so until beta.

I have this suspicion that they need 3.0 to be playable so they can either market it to raise more funding and/or so they can come out and call it their "minimum viable product" which releases them from some liability. But to me, 3.0 would not be a MVP - it's missing too many features to meet that definition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLU Aequitas

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
I have this suspicion that they need 3.0 to be playable so they can either market it to raise more funding and/or so they can come out and call it their "minimum viable product" which releases them from some liability. But to me, 3.0 would not be a MVP - it's missing too many features to meet that definition.
I suspect it is more along the lines of them wanting to use 3.0 as the start of the countdown to Beta. They want more content in there to show more of the capabilities they have developed in their codebase to show it off.

The Alpha has lost most of its point in terms of collecting bugs and gameplay balance (people in the test servers are more likely to have already reported the issue). As it stands the main point is to have a platform to keep the income up while development continues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLU Aequitas

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
I think they want 3.0 to feel more like a game they could sell and less like an alpha. As CR said, once the rollout of 3.0 concludes, it's basically the end of their tool development stage and the start of their content development stage.
 

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
Dec 27, 2001
6,798
581
126
I think there's a critical show-stopper issue that they don't have an ETA on. Meanwhile they're using the delay to keep cramming in more content which probably exacerbates the delay / creates additional delays.
 

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
I think there's a critical show-stopper issue that they don't have an ETA on. Meanwhile they're using the delay to keep cramming in more content which probably exacerbates the delay / creates additional delays.
Doing something not related to the "showstopper bug" would not increase a delay. Either the additional stuff is ready once the showstopper is fixed and they release with the additional stuff, or the additional stuff isn't ready, and they release without the additional stuff... That is simple multi-team release scheduling management. And you better have the other teams working on more stuff while the "showstopper" is being worked by a "tiger team", otherwise you are paying a bunch of people to sit around and watch paint dry...
 

Stringjam

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2011
1,871
33
91
At this point, all I care about is the netcode. Content can be created quickly - but if they don't resolve this thing, none of it is going to matter.

I say that, but SQ42 doesn't rely on netcode, and we just aren't seeing much info on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodRevrnd

Fallen Kell

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,663
250
126
At this point, all I care about is the netcode. Content can be created quickly - but if they don't resolve this thing, none of it is going to matter.

I say that, but SQ42 doesn't rely on netcode, and we just aren't seeing much info on that.
They have said multiple times that they don't want to give info on SQ42. The only info they want to release are things related to the engine (thus player ships, mechanics). They want the story and mission branching to stay hidden until we have it to actually play since that is the whole point of the game (as the PTU is where everyone will be essentially doing the "end game" type things, and thus the playthough/replay value of SQ42 relies on the information being kept secret and letting the players discover all the secrets for themselves).
 

rivethead

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2005
2,635
106
106
Doing something not related to the "showstopper bug" would not increase a delay. Either the additional stuff is ready once the showstopper is fixed and they release with the additional stuff, or the additional stuff isn't ready, and they release without the additional stuff... That is simple multi-team release scheduling management. And you better have the other teams working on more stuff while the "showstopper" is being worked by a "tiger team", otherwise you are paying a bunch of people to sit around and watch paint dry...
Last Friday's weekly email from Chris Roberts seemed to indicate the entire production team is working on one of two things: 3.0 bugs or Gamescom presentation.

Right now I don't think anyone is sitting around watching paint dry. But they're also not progressing much on 3.1, 3.2, etc. content.

As I understand it, 3.0 was content-locked weeks ago. Even if something was finished and appeared "ready" while they work on bug fixing, it would not be added to 3.0 because doing so could cause even more bugs to show up. But again, this is just my understanding of things.
 

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,407
44
91
After they initially removed a lot from 3.0 (such as the removal of all Stanton planets), then they kept adding things as the trimmed down 3.0 was slipping away. The latest addition they told us about was the new fog.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
At this point, all I care about is the netcode. Content can be created quickly - but if they don't resolve this thing, none of it is going to matter.
I think this is pretty much what their priorities are right now. As CR stated in an interview recently they're wanting to wrap up this phase of development which is focused on tool building. Once 3.0 is out and stable, it signifies that they can move on (for the most part) to using their tools to rapidly generate content for future patches.

I mean.. I get it. They've made it clear they can whip together a basic system in a day or so. It'll be empty, but there's also no point in adding a bunch of empty stuff at this point until they can qualify 3.0 as a stable build.

As much as I hate waiting, I feel like the dam is about to break open. They have a giant list of stuff they've been working on in parallel with 3.0 so once 3.0 hits and we have a delta patcher, I think that's the last of these super long waits on patches.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,701
60
91
They have said multiple times that they don't want to give info on SQ42. The only info they want to release are things related to the engine (thus player ships, mechanics). They want the story and mission branching to stay hidden until we have it to actually play since that is the whole point of the game (as the PTU is where everyone will be essentially doing the "end game" type things, and thus the playthough/replay value of SQ42 relies on the information being kept secret and letting the players discover all the secrets for themselves).
Maybe it's just me (and my experience working with CryEngine) but it seems pretty obvious that if they can get the PU working for 3.0, building out smaller, more contained on rail maps is cake walk. They could very easily have all the missions and majority of the game done and simply be waiting on polish and advanced tech to flesh it out completely. They already said the cinematics for the first episode of SQ42 were roughed in and just needed polish.
 

Stringjam

Golden Member
Jun 30, 2011
1,871
33
91
They have said multiple times that they don't want to give info on SQ42. The only info they want to release are things related to the engine (thus player ships, mechanics). They want the story and mission branching to stay hidden until we have it to actually play since that is the whole point of the game (as the PTU is where everyone will be essentially doing the "end game" type things, and thus the playthough/replay value of SQ42 relies on the information being kept secret and letting the players discover all the secrets for themselves).
I don't believe you have to give away any important story info to keep backers up to date on SQ42, though. They even stated a goal numerous times in 2016 to show backers a full "polished mission" from SQ42. If they're far enough along in the development that SQ42 only needs "more polish," then there are numerous things / mechanics / art that could be shown that wouldn't spoil any of the main storyline. Perhaps an example of AI subsumption? Combat AI? Both things I would believe to be critical components of a single-player campaign like this, but to date we've seen very, very little info on.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY