jdreyer wrote on Dec 27, 2015, 19:28:
What makes you think they have the money to fund a company of 260 people for the next two years?

well considering they exist and have for years, I think the burden is on YOU to prove why they CAN'T exist for the next two years

looking at the stats, both the paying player base and the sales are growing over time http://tinyurl.com/StarCitizenStats

so I guess you'll need to find a different reason to buck the trend. terrorism maybe

Kalthorn wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 20:14:

Scheherazade wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 17:31:
...

FYI, in software dev. The latest non-daily release is labelled "stable".

It's convention to call it " stable", likely stemming from how 'at the time that they release it' its the most stable of the recent dailies.

However, the title "stable" is not a description of the software's actual stability or instability - it just means 'not a daily'.

This isn't a CIG thing, its a naming convention throughout software dev.
-scheherazade

FYI, not true at all. Stable means stable. Stable builds receive more testing and remain in place through many daily builds. It's not merely some slightly older build.

If you are actually in software development and follow this practice then I fear for your customers and you would be doing a service to the public to name your employer.

No such thing. Stable is a name forged in hope and expectation, and with time always turned into a lie.

You can test all you want, and you can have a great impression of whatever build you elect to be your latest 'stable'. Regardless, over time bugs will be encountered and bug fixes will make their way into newer builds. Progress will inevitably leave 'stable' less stable than current - barring new broken features. It's the very nature of progress.

Like I said, stable is 'the most stable build at the time it is released' - but time moves on, and what was once considered a good build will be looked back on as crap compared to newer builds.

Hence the redhat example. The [relatively] ancient stable releases are more unstable/broken than the free and more often updated fedora that redhat branches from. It's a case where 'stable' just means 'what is broken is well understood and your kickstart scripts that patch/fix crap will remain valid for a long time because the next stable isn't coming to fix what is broke for a long while'. If you want less headaches, you're better off with the bugfixed fedora releases than the old busted redhat 'stable'.


Also, its a given that 'testing' is how you judge the stability of a build. Unless you're doing some sorta faith based coding...

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Dec 27, 2015, 20:48.

loomy wrote on Dec 27, 2015, 09:08:
I tried the new alpha. it is incredibly good within context. and not only that, but the rate of change is obviously growing. I predict this game will be impressing regular people in 1 year, and "done" in 2 years. the haters apparently have no merit because they've never seen a AAA public alpha... because there has never been one. they are comparing star citizen to a figment of their imaginations.

and for those criticizing the CEO for being bad at his own game: this too is normal. I didn't blink an eye. he acted a klutz, like every executive I've ever seen. they do not have time to play games. but your imaginations ran wild again, like your mouths.

What makes you think they have the money to fund a company of 260 people for the next two years?

I tried the new alpha. it is incredibly good within context. and not only that, but the rate of change is obviously growing. I predict this game will be impressing regular people in 1 year, and "done" in 2 years. the haters apparently have no merit because they've never seen a AAA public alpha... because there has never been one. they are comparing star citizen to a figment of their imaginations.

and for those criticizing the CEO for being bad at his own game: this too is normal. I didn't blink an eye. he acted a klutz, like every executive I've ever seen. they do not have time to play games. but your imaginations ran wild again, like your mouths.

idk why but i enjoy calling this game Space Inhabitant

Alpha and still doesn't work with how many millions does it have, I need to look into my crystal ball and see if there will ever be a beta version!!!! DA DAA DAAAAAA.......

jdreyer wrote on Dec 25, 2015, 14:08:
Given I could never get 2.0 load, maybe I'll have better luck with 2.1.

It'd load for me but I had a problem where the single player for some reason would hang for 30 seconds and then progress for 2 seconds. The closest I saw to a solution was someone mentioning that they upgraded to a top of the line SSD and it solved their problems for them.

I'm not about to do this.

Strangely enough, the PTU worked okay. I just didn't know how to control the f*cking thing.

Kxmode wrote on Dec 25, 2015, 17:21:
Are we there yet?

*shakes the Magic 8-Ball*

"Ask... again... later..."

Well, if anyone is interested in some pretty interesting (and kind of worrying for those who are hoping for the full fledged PU to ever happen) info on the current server issues then check out this video where CIG's Sean Tracy (formerly Crytek and the maker of the Mechwarrior Living Legends mod) talks about the challenges they are facing. This is a guy who knows the CryEngine in and out and he admits it is problematic on the server side.

When you put 1 + 1 then you will know why Star Marine is still nowhere to be seen. The instancing system is simply way too slow with its updates (among other issues which are animation related).
By the way, the whole Sean Tracy segment is pretty interesting so if you have the time then make sure to rewind and watch it all.
For example, he also confirms what I've been saying for a long time which is that releasing those modules for marketing purposes is actually detrimental to development and holding it back because they need to support their live builds while at the same time continuing the actual development of the game.
Working on the live builds requires them to work on systems that are already obsolete so some of it is totally a waste of time.

Anyway, as you can tell from Sean Tracy's little speech, at under 10% of the features in the game they are massively struggling with the server side of things already. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
I'm very glad I'm mostly in it for Squadron 42 because there is no doubt that they can and will pull off a somewhat decent single player space game but the PU (at least as advertised) is pretty much fucked as far as I can see (and as many of us have predicted from the start when the feature list and scope just kept exploding).

This comment was edited on Dec 26, 2015, 20:58.

Scheherazade wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 17:31:
...

FYI, in software dev. The latest non-daily release is labelled "stable".

It's convention to call it " stable", likely stemming from how 'at the time that they release it' its the most stable of the recent dailies.

However, the title "stable" is not a description of the software's actual stability or instability - it just means 'not a daily'.

This isn't a CIG thing, its a naming convention throughout software dev.
-scheherazade

FYI, not true at all. Stable means stable. Stable builds receive more testing and remain in place through many daily builds. It's not merely some slightly older build.

If you are actually in software development and follow this practice then I fear for your customers and you would be doing a service to the public to name your employer.

Kxmode wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 17:56:

Razumen wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 10:29:
Like DNF ever had a publicly playable version of its original version...get a grip man.

Well of course not. DNF wasn't a crowdfunded game.

Irrelevant, by all accounts it never made as much progress as SC did without having to restart over and over again.

its too bad christ roberts is such a knobgobbler ... it would be cool to see a single player bridge commander type game with these assets, and you know SP would at least be doable.. if not timely

Yesterday I crashed 3-4 times on PTU inside an hour and today had zero CTD moments for my two hour session. There has not been any patches. Seems like either server restart fixed problems or backend got some fixes as client has not been updated.

Was fun, though I got ejected out of multicrew ships for random reasons, freelancer had gun model inside cargo hold that ejected you from ship when you hit it. EVA in the covalex was fun, two person team in EVA mode using suit lights created a nice ambiance.

Seeing a guy learning to fly, by crashing his cutlass many times around olisar loosing all but 1 main engine and 1 manouver thruster and after I EVA'd to it, we flew to astro for repairs.

It's nice to see the potential in the game. I agree right now it's nothing more than a 16 player multiplayer instance, but the experience is fun. I have no expectations from this build besides giving me a decent understanding how currently enable functionalities work. ship flying + first person movement in the same game is really something.

That said: gunnery role seems really difficult as for instance the traverse speed for Super Hornet turret is very slow compared to the other ships. I don't think I killed anything in my 10+ stints in the gunnery position on different ships.

P52 merlin has no quantum drive or at least did not work for me. So it currently seems to be meant for local combat only. Not in system escort etc.. basically just defending/assisting connie in combat where the enemy or connie it self can always quantum drive out leaving the escort ship behind.

Razumen wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 10:29:
Like DNF ever had a publicly playable version of its original version...get a grip man.

Well of course not. DNF wasn't a crowdfunded game.

Win 7, 8GB RAM, Core i5 @ 3.5 GHz, GTX670

*Points at the GTX670*
There is the problem. nVidia cards and drivers are buggy beyond belief.

In my experience it has been very difficult to get things to run properly using basic DirectX feature. AMD aren't the best cards, but for the basic stuff they tend to just work.

My friends who professionally write games have the same experience. They tell me they program the game, then spend at least a month trying to get it to not crash and run smoothly on nVidia cards.

Intel graphics they like because they have the most stable drivers, but the low performance they don't like.

Of course Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 isn't the most stable thing in the world, but I can usually play for a while without it crashing. Alpha 2.1 I experience the performance problem they mentioned pretty quickly. For me it seems to happen when trying to fly the Freelancer.

Kosumo wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 15:42:
Scheherazade, you contradict yourself just like how RSI does.

You say you can play 2.1 without crashes, you say it is more stable than 2.0, you then go on to say PTU is a snapshot and non-PTU (2.0) is stable. Then go on to explain that that is not always true.

That's all fine, but why then would they release it to a wider player base? YOLO is a dumb reason for anything.

By them opening it to a wider player base, and baiting them in with the mention of the Freelance, they are undermining them self's.

They even say how the PTU server are more restricted, yet here they are enticing more players to give it a try, hince, making those who would use it for bug hunting potential having to wait/miss out.

This is poor management.

As to the Star Marine issue, why then did they make the effort (which they clearly did, at some expense)?

So you don't see a need for Star Marine, well at some point Chris Roberts did - and I say that point was so that they could work on that aspect of the FPS gameplay, he was selling it up like a tactical squad shooter like SWAT or something.

I have only watched a few (maybe 90 mins total) videos of the 2.0 since it came out - I've been away working a lot - but I've yet to see any footage of people ingaging in any kind of FPS play that is anything like what Chris Roberts was talking about a year ago, in fact, I've seen no FPS shoot outs. At best I've seen a person shot their gun!

How are they going to develop their FPS gameplay if no one is testing it?

As to Arena Commander, did they use that to help refine the space fighting because from all I ever seen (it was like turrents in space, lame as) and read, very few people where happy with it and thing that people complained/disliked about it to CIG where not addressed. It was nothing more than a place where people could accutly use their internet spaceships, therefore helping to sell internet spaceships. Nothing more.

FYI, in software dev. The latest non-daily release is labelled "stable".

It's convention to call it " stable", likely stemming from how 'at the time that they release it' its the most stable of the recent dailies.

However, the title "stable" is not a description of the software's actual stability or instability - it just means 'not a daily'.

This isn't a CIG thing, its a naming convention throughout software dev.

In actuality, its common for current "daily" releases to have more bug fixes and more actual stability than the the older "stable" releases.

Keep that in mind when reading my post, it should help you understand it better.



As per star marine, AFAIK they were gonna use it to demo fps prior to fps working in the universe (expecting the universe to take much longer?). Clearly the universe fps beat star marine to the punch.

-scheherazade

This comment was edited on Dec 26, 2015, 17:38.

Scheherazade, you contradict yourself just like how RSI does.

You say you can play 2.1 without crashes, you say it is more stable than 2.0, you then go on to say PTU is a snapshot and non-PTU (2.0) is stable. Then go on to explain that that is not always true.

That's all fine, but why then would they release it to a wider player base? YOLO is a dumb reason for anything.

By them opening it to a wider player base, and baiting them in with the mention of the Freelance, they are undermining them self's.

They even say how the PTU server are more restricted, yet here they are enticing more players to give it a try, hince, making those who would use it for bug hunting potential having to wait/miss out.

This is poor management.

As to the Star Marine issue, why then did they make the effort (which they clearly did, at some expense)?

So you don't see a need for Star Marine, well at some point Chris Roberts did - and I say that point was so that they could work on that aspect of the FPS gameplay, he was selling it up like a tactical squad shooter like SWAT or something.

I have only watched a few (maybe 90 mins total) videos of the 2.0 since it came out - I've been away working a lot - but I've yet to see any footage of people ingaging in any kind of FPS play that is anything like what Chris Roberts was talking about a year ago, in fact, I've seen no FPS shoot outs. At best I've seen a person shot their gun!

How are they going to develop their FPS gameplay if no one is testing it?

As to Arena Commander, did they use that to help refine the space fighting because from all I ever seen (it was like turrents in space, lame as) and read, very few people where happy with it and thing that people complained/disliked about it to CIG where not addressed. It was nothing more than a place where people could accutly use their internet spaceships, therefore helping to sell internet spaceships. Nothing more.

DNF comparisons are out of context.

DNF was a victim of rapid technological progress outpacing its own goals.

They wanted DNF to be so far ahead of the pack when it comes out that it would be an even bigger hit than Duke3D.

That decade had silly fast progress. Every other year was a night and day change in graphics.

From Doom to COD/HL2 was a span of ~10years... and DNF was pushing a multi year dev cycle.

At that time, if you tried to make a game with more than a 1 or 2 year dev cycle, it would look ancient by the time it was out.

By the time they would finish making all the DNF content, it would look old. Then they would start making new content, and again by the time they finished it would look old. They were in a death spiral that burned through all of their money - but it's a death spiral that could only exist within that decade.

Now that graphics and tech have stagnated, and change is slow, the very same development cycle that failed DNF in the 90s would today bring the game to completion without needing any reboots mid dev.

-scheherazade

Razumen wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 10:29:
Like DNF ever had a publicly playable version of its original version...get a grip man.

There's a playable version? News to me. Every time I try to load 2.0 or 2.1, it crashes. Win 7, 8GB RAM, Core i5 @ 3.5 GHz, GTX670.

harlock wrote on Dec 26, 2015, 05:25:

Dagnamit wrote on Dec 25, 2015, 23:47:

jdreyer wrote on Dec 25, 2015, 20:05:

harlock wrote on Dec 25, 2015, 17:24:
with each passing month it becomes increasingly likely this will forever remain an attempt at a proof-of-concept tech demo

Hard to argue against that assertion.

it's almost as if they're in the middle of making a video game.

yeh, just like 3d Realms when they were in the middle of making Duke Nukem Forever

just like that

That's a pretty sweet burn.

There are certainly parallels like the constantly shifting scope, completely redoing things from scratch, inexorably slow progress, etc. Hard to see how they don't get the PU done before running out of $$$. As long as they deliver SQ 42, I'll feel like I'd have gotten my $30 worth.