Razumen wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 11:13:
Honestly no one knows, not even you, how much time they spend optimizing, or how inneficient their pipeline is, it's just one more made up hypothetical so you can complain about it.

I'm in Evocati and get access to new releases 1-2 months prior to it going to PTU and Live. Plus we can expect there is a level of optimisation prior to this.

There are so few features being added each release that there really isn't any need for the frequency of patches we're seeing. If CIG halved the number of feature releases each year and spent the same amount of time optimising patches it would halve the amount of time spent optimising the game, time which could be used on other aspects of development. We also know that every time there is a branch from the game dev channel that any fixes and optimisations need to be merged back, which is also time consuming and a real problem when those merges are taking place around the time the next patch is being branched.

Razumen wrote on Sep 18, 2020, 02:28:
EVERY game in early access releases public alphas! What are you smoking?

'but they're doing some unnecessary optimization that they have to redo once they add a new feature."

That's not necessarily true. Once something is optimized, it stays optimized unless that new feature changes it somehow. That's obviously not true for all new features, and for many things like assets, it's often not true at all for it's entire life, post optimization.

The polishing they do it's lost work either, it carries on in future releases.

It's so ironic that people will complain about it not being optimized enough, and then others turn around and complain that they're spending too much time optimizing! Just shows that people just want to criticize them with no real sense to it.

If CIG moved to a semi-annual release schedule they'd add more features per patch and still have more time for optimisation over the course of a year. Having to constantly branch and merge the game code is inefficient.

CIG could have a patch that adds features one quarter and then the next quarter could be balance changes and more assets (ships, armours, etc). Even that would free up resources to focus on longer term goals. By constantly trying to optimise each release development is taking an eternity and there is little to show for it. The only thing CIG is good at putting out is art assets (ships, armour, locations, etc).

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 16:23:
With that setup buying the entry-level should be a no-brainer. Your brother will see immediate and noticeable gains. However, it's going to be challenging to get 4K60. He should upgrade the CPU/mobo. Once a person games at 4K, they don't go back to 1080 or 1440. :)

My brother mostly games at 1080p on his 4K monitor for performance reasons, so he's obviously not the most fussy. He's going to get a hand-me-down 3900X and MB from my father, who is determined to upgrade to a 5950X. He's also going to get a free GTX 1080, so that's why he's not sure if he will go for the 3080.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 16:23:
My build. I specifically built it for 4K60 or very close to that.

CPU: I7-8700
GPU: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11G
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB DDR4-2133
MOBO: ASUS ROG Strix Z370-E Gaming
1st Drive: SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 500GB
2nd Drive: SAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 500GB
3rd Drive: WD Black 2 TB 7200
Power Supply: 1600 Watt CORSAIR AX1600i
Displays: (2) LG 27" 4K UHD IPS
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

Except for a few games like MSFS, I see at or above 60 FPS. In MSFS, I see between 40-50. It will drop to 33 when I fly in and around large metros, but the game quickly stabilizes framerates so that lower rates are buttery smooth. In older games like Guild Wars 2, with all settings maxed running on legacy DirectX 9, I see between 70 and 90 depending on the area, and when the screen fills with players, 40-60 (area dependent). GW2 is my go-to benchmark for testing what I like to call the trueness of a video card's performance. If it does well in a game like GW2, it'll handle modern games without issue.

I have no doubt upgrading to a 30XX would boost performance past 4K60. However, I'm not messing with the 3070 or 3080. I'm saving my pennies for the 3090. I paid $1,200 for the 2080 Ti, and it was well worth the cost. Solid 4K60 gaming for the past year and a half. Video card generations rapidly change. I didn't want to wait for a 30XX when I could get a 2080 Ti and enjoy 4K60.

I have a similar setup: 8700K, GTX1080 Ti, 32GB DDR4-3000, Intel Optane 900p, Sabrent 2TB nVME, 1000W PSU, 32" 1440p @ 165Hz.

My GPU is a bit older, so I'll see more of an uplift than someone like yourself on a 2080 Ti. I'm trying to avoid upgrading my CPU / MB this year and see if I can hold out for PCIe 5.0 and DDR 5 generation down the road. As I'm not gaming at 4K I think I'll be fine for now. I'll look at a 4K high refresh monitor down the road but likely once HDR implementation has settled down.

Darks wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 14:50:
Plus we are seeing on eBay people selling the cards for 10K.

I don't get what's going on with that. There are cards on eBay with dozens of bids and currently sat at over £50,000 ($64,000). Is it fraud / money laundering or just really rich people that must have it now?

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 13:57:

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 12:57:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:54:
Relax everyone. Just wait a few months and then you pick one up after the hype and crazy dies down.

I've seen it go both ways. Sometimes you have stock shortages for weeks / months and prices are higher than if you get in early. Plus I'm expecting my third child in December and have a month of annual leave / paternity leave, so ideally want to get the card prior to that to make the most of it.

Congratulations!

Cheers Not only will I have the little one to deal with but my eldest is five and really into Fortnite and I told him I'd install it again if I bought a new graphics card. He keeps asking when the graphics card will be downloaded, so I don't think he really understands it all. So yeah, I'll be one of those crazy people playing Fortnite with raytracing. Might even have to buy an Xbox Series X for the Mrs, as she's started playing Fortnite a bit more recently.

The number of people trying to get hold of these cards is ridiculous. My father, who isn't even a gamer and is only interested in Flight Simulator 20200, even managed to order one today. And my brother hasn't upgraded his computer since 2012 (he's rocking a horrendously mismatched i7 2600K, hand-me-down GTX 970 SLI setup and a 4K monitor) and even he is seriously considering one.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:54:
Relax everyone. Just wait a few months and then you pick one up after the hype and crazy dies down.

I've seen it go both ways. Sometimes you have stock shortages for weeks / months and prices are higher than if you get in early. Plus I'm expecting my third child in December and have a month of annual leave / paternity leave, so ideally want to get the card prior to that to make the most of it.

Finally managed to get one ordered and cheaper than a lot of sites are trying to charge now. Would have preferred a Founder's Edition for the cooler but I don't have my case on display, so no big deal. I'm still going to email their support and see if I can get them to drop the price to match what it was originally showing for - doesn't hurt to try.

RedEye9 wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 11:00:
Raising prices literally as you're hitting F5.
That's some definite bullshit.

It happened with Scan as well. So annoying.

The launch was exactly as much of a shitstorm as I expected. The nVidia website didn't provide any purchase option from the live date - refreshed constantly for an hour before it showed as out of stock. All the main UK retailers went down: Overclockers, Scan, Ebuyer. I got as far as the payment accepted page on Overclockers once but they it still failed before the order completed. Then tried it again and the price had gone up £50. I had one in the basket for Ebuyer but then the cart failed.

Just your usual capitalist profiteering bullshit.

Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 04:51:
Only in a thread about SC would people say that public alphas are bad. There is nothing at all wrong with them releasing public builds regularly, I'm sure they've looked at the release schedules and picked one that works the best for them.

Nobody is saying that public alphas are bad. The issue is that the quarterly release cycle has resulted in very few features being added and large amounts of time being required to stabilise them - often to the point that by the time they get one released to Live they're starting the early test window for Evocati testers. All of the major features on the schedule have been removed due to constant delays.

Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 04:51:
ALL games are poorly optimized in development. Major optimization does not happen until AFTER the majority of development is done. It is also not unusual for FPS to take a hit as a game progresses and new features are added. The very fact that they can see those hits across the board do in fact help them realize what's causing the performance hits after each update.

That would be fine is CIG was able to stick to its roadmaps, as S42 and SC should both have been released years ago and had all the polish and optimisation. S42 was due out in 2016 and will be delayed again from its 2020 release. You can't just say "alpha" and avoid any criticism.

Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:35:
Pretty much false, every game in development continually has playable builds, the only difference is that it's now available to the public. They'll have a slight amount of more overhead required for the delivery of these builds, but it's not a huge amount, and it certainly doesn't hamper iteration, as that can still be done normally in development builds.

CIG is releasing quarterly patches, with each patch being put through 1-2 months of polishing prior to release. That is a massively level of inefficiency. Even moving to a twice a semi annual release schedule would significant reduce the amount of wasted development time. Barely any meaningful features are being added each release.

Razumen wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 00:35:
It also provides them with invaluable feedback, a huge amount of testers, and telemetry on people's systems and how well the game runs on them. They can easily see how changes they make affect a wide range of configurations. And if you're a player, they have a full interactive chart that tells you how well your system will run the game. And once it gets closer to release, this info will help them optimize the game to certain specs easier.

All that information is meaningless when it tells the blindly obvious - that the game is poorly optimised and unstable. CIG's telemetry page reveals that a 10900K / 2080Ti setup cannot even average 60fps at 1080p, whereas older patches were hitting over 80fps. You claim it can offer a benefit yet objectively it is not delivering that benefit.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 17, 2020, 01:38:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:35:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 16, 2020, 22:22:
Meanwhile, Apple continues to abuse it's monopoly position.

Just hours after the reveal of Apple’s new services bundles, the tech giant has already taken criticism for evidently favoring its own apps over those with which it directly competes in its App Store.
Spotify, which has been feuding with the tech giant for years now over its hefty App Store fees, quickly seized on the opportunity to raise Apple antitrust concerns.

But is it illegal? Meh. It's WRONG, no doubt. But Illegal, I don't think so. Apple owns the operating system and hardware. Like any platform, they create and govern the rules; rules companies agree to when they sign up for an account. So it is less a monopoly and more like a massive and unethical conflict of interest.

It's textbook anti-trust. It's why the studio system was dismantled in the 1950s. Just because the Trump JD doesn't prosecute doesn't mean it's not illegal.

This. Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive manner. Some apps, like Netflix, are able to allow people to make purchases outside of the system without Apple taking a cut yet others like Epic are not. Apple has even been found to be pressuring apps to add payment methods just so it can get a cut, refusing them if they don't accept.

Epic has taken a principled stand and risked the easy money it was making with Fornite in a move which, if successful, would benefit the entire industry. Whatever your opinion on the EGS this is a pro-consumer move and should be applauded.

Jonjonz wrote on Sep 15, 2020, 06:41:
The original poster in the SG forum has been a supporter since 2016. Out of this whole long running clown show, it amazes me it took anyone four years to figure out things were not going exactly as planned. So many people these days invest their money with little to no research.

When I saw the original announcement for SG, I saw Chris Roberts name and thought Oh didn't he do Wing Commander, maybe this is good. But then I went the extra step and did some research and read about the Freelancer debacle (that pretty much set the template for SC.)

To be fair it's a full time job trying to keep up with the project. It's easy for people to assume it is just like an early access project when it's nothing of the sort. Then again, CIG has put out frequent free-fly events so people have every opportunity to try the game for themselves and decide whether they like it.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 15, 2020, 01:38:

phinn wrote on Sep 14, 2020, 20:58:
I don't get how this is better than a permanent ban. There should be nothing for a cheater to do but delete the game.

Don't get me wrong, I hate cheaters and cheating. It's one of the reasons I don't play MP games with people I don't know. But consider:

1) Cheaters get to play the game on their terms without bothering the rest of us.

2) If you ban them they'll just go and get another copy of the game (why do you think PUBG is eternally in the top 10). This way cheaters are quarantined without being able reintroduce themselves into the gaming pool to bother the rest of us.

This. I'd rather let cheaters play the game they've bought and keep them occupied than have them buying another copying and impacting legitimate players.

Drayth wrote on Sep 13, 2020, 02:07:

jdreyer wrote on Sep 12, 2020, 17:34:

Drayth wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 16:09:
It was canceled a while ago.

They're not holding a virtual one?

Oh, gotcha. No actually. There were hints there may be some surprise video around the time of the convention, but nothing yet.

Officially CIG said there would be no CitizenCon this year and that it wouldn't even be going all digital but it is widely expected there will be an equivalent presentation, especially given that CIG is preparing to release a new roadmap. There's been so little progress on SC and S42 that the community has becoming increasingly critical and rightly so.

We know that prior to the outbreak of human malware CIG was planning a major CitizenCon event, so that development time has to be going somewhere.

He's posted again. Something strange is going on. Now he's promising the game won't take 10-20 years. Bold promise.

"I can promise you the gameplay I described is not a pipe dream, nor will it take 10 to 20 years to deliver. I described systems we either have working, or are working on; we've even shown early versions of some of this like fire on Inside Star Citizen. I can't promise you exactly what quarter it will come together but once the new Road Map web work is done you'll be able to see the teams progress to achieving what I describe in real time."

Speaking of Chris Roberts, he bizarrely posted to Spectrum for the first time in 18 months. It was a rambling post about the in-game atmospheric room system, attempting to defend it from criticism.

Here's an excerpt of his excellent story telling:
A ballistic round passes through the ship's shield, which scrubs off some of its kinetic energy but not enough as the round's velocity was high as was its mass as it was an armor piercing round. It manages to penetrate the armor and strikes an internal component, say a power relay node (something else we are working on as part of the pipe system refactor). The power node takes damage giving it a chance to "misfire" while in use. A few minutes later the node does misfire, blowing its fuse and resulting in it catching fire. The crew of the ship doesn't realize a fire has broken out in one of the side corridors, as they are busily concentrating on fighting the ships attacking them. The fire starts to spread along flammable surfaces, and as the fire starts to engulf other components they also catch fire. The engineer on the bridge of the ship sees his console flash red giving him a warning that several components have failed and looking at his ships schematic he sees a fire has broken out below decks. The engineer decides to seal the bulkhead doors on the corridor to contain the fire but the doors have no power as the power node is out! He comms one of his crew mates to leave his turret and grab an extinguisher and put out the blaze which is slowly creeping towards the power plant room. Fire reaching a ship's power plant or it's ammo stores are two sure fire ways for your ship to go boom. With the physical damage system ships will no longer just explode when their hit points reach zero, they'll explode because something inside them went critical and exploded (due to damage or heat), which then damages everything else. Outside of that damage will affect the ability of the ship to function or it's structural integrity so they also could become a lifeless hulk as much as they could go up in a flash of light. When the crew member gets to the corridor where the fire has broken out is has already consumed a huge amount of oxygen in that "room" (the corridor) and has released noxious gasses, so the crew member can't breathe and quickly retreats to put on a fire resistant suit and helmet. The engineer in desperation manages to reroute power away from the destroyed node through a secondary node restoring power to enough of the bulkhead doors to allow him to contain the fire. Noticing that there is an external airlock in the sealed off area he opens the airlock, venting the oxygen in the sealed off corridors and rooms to the vacuum of space, depriving the fire of the ability to burn, putting most of it out. By this time the crew member is suitably dressed and can extinguish the fire that made it past the bulkhead door before it can grow again. The engineer then reseals the airlock and allows the life support system to replenish the air in the vented part of the ship. Once done the engineer opens up the bulkhead door allowing the crewmember in with a replacement fuse for the power node, restoring power to that section of the ship, then returns to his turret. It's been a close call but the ship is still alive and in the fight!

Kosumo wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 04:45:
But the reality is that the game has never played like that demo - which it shows no reason why you would do your first person camera like that as apposed to how games where already handling the player camera. Chris just wasted time and (other peoples) money due to his lack of experance with modern gaming and game design.

The reason for unifying the camera view was so that CIG could add different weapons and armours without having to create assets for both the first and third person views. It requires more work upfront but reduces work further down the line. If it was as smooth as that video then I'd be all for it. Currently the in-game movement is awful.

Kosumo wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 04:45:
]Have you ever played a game of Star Marine that was anywhere close to that video? Bet you haven't, bet no one has due to next to no one playing Star Marine - even after Chris wasted just about $2 million dollars of backers money contracting out Star Marine to IllFonic to make it, which CIG then mismanaged it by not insuring that IllFonic was on the same page when it came to the scale of the assets and props.

No, and that's exactly the issue. CIG demonstrated that the unified view works well offline in that video but as soon as you add in the appalling netcode and server backend it falls apart. The game doesn't play anywhere close to as smooth as that video and we're more than three years on.

Kosumo wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 04:45:
The video you should have paid attention to is the one where Chris attemps to play Star Citizen and its apparent that he has no idea what he is doing ..... yet this is his dream game?

You mean this one? Yeah, it's pure cringe. I saw it at the time. Not only does he not have a clue what to do but he also uses an Xbox controller rather than mouse and keyboard or HOTAS. But I couldn't care less whether he's any good at the game, only whether the game itself is good (which it isn't currently).

Kosumo wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 04:45:
As you know, CIG has had plenty of videos of demos that really mislead people to what the current state of the game is like.

Where is the Sandworm*? Same place as Chris and Sandi - no where to be seen. It was lies.

That for me is where the project started to fall apart, which was just after the Star Marine debacle. The sandworm and NPC AI was obviously faked and when Alpha 3.0 was eventually released it had a fraction of the features promised. Ever since they've opted for scripted presentations and misleading people about the status of development.

My opinion is that the game never started as a scam, despite what you and many others claim. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I think Chris Roberts tried to build the game he always wanted but is so disconnected from modern game design and so bad at managing projects that it completely fell apart. Then it became easier to sell new ships and promise new features than to address the fundamental issues with the project. This is best exemplified by the fact that Chris Roberts is personally coding the physics system. He should be overseeing the project and directing the vision, not micromanaging every aspect of the game and coding it himself. And it's supported by the fact the same thing happened with Freelancer back in the day.

grudgebearer wrote on Sep 10, 2020, 10:46:
LOL...

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Jul 16, 2015, 10:25:
Of course the game is intended to make money but I disagree that making money is the only goal. I sincerely believe that Chris Roberts is making this game because of his passion, not because of money.

As I said, I don't like the funding model but am rational enough to accept it was a necessary evil. You're free to disagree. If you don't want to back the game then don't.

Again, I think my opinion was perfectly reasonable at the time. Back then the game was less than three years after the Kickstarter and we had seen the release of Arena Commander, which was fun to play. The scope of the project had changed to match funding and that would mean it would take longer than originally anticipated. Notice how even back then I didn't like the funding model.

Kosumo wrote on Sep 11, 2020, 00:01:
I don't agree that Chris Roberts has great ideas either. Look at some of his idea that they have used in Star Citizen - The first person camera being in the models eyes - it was fucked, they then spent ages making a system to stop it shaking all over the place and making people sick. Have you seen the system for having to eat and drink in Star Citizen? Nothing fun or good about it. It's pointless and hinders the gameplay.

The concept of a unified first/third person camera is fine. CIG has even demonstrated it running smoothly here. The issue is that performance and the netcode currently are appalling, so it doesn't play smoothly. As for food and drink, I agree that it is a bad system and the wrong focus for the game.

To give people an insight into the official forum, CIG posted a cosplay competition and the top voted responses were:

• I hope someone cosplays as a delayed feature, would be so spot on
• T posing on a chair shouldn't be hard. - This is reference to a common NPC bug
• Can I cosplay as a 30k? - This is reference to a common server crash

Backers are not happy with the project at the moment. I've also been warned by a moderator myself for mentioning that Chris Roberts has disappeared from the project, as CIG has a policy against FUD which is being used to silence criticism.