What game? I've played the tech demo.
Star Citizen, Roberts Space Industries - Chris Roberts' life support and retirement fund [2012-]
- Thread starter green.pixel
- Start date
What game? I've played the tech demo.
Several times a week. I've been playing it constantly since the end of 2015. I'd like to know how many hours I've been into it.
In spite of all that they need a big breakthrough soon. For massive progress they have to move some things from the gameserver to the backend. Then you can do long distance scanning, integrate more players, more NPCs and so on.
I don't know if it comes on consoles. Like hardly any other big game the controls are designed enormously for the PC. Every key on the keyboard has an important function. Often there are even multiple key combinations, double clicks, etc. I think this is much better than a dull console-like control. However, some people are overstrained by this.
By the way, they released 3.7
Last edited:
My PS2 accepts keyboard and a mouse for some games.
As does ps 3&4. (Ps1 apparently only had mouse support.)
Now we got a video about this topic.
As a person who has been dealing with Star Citizen almost daily since October 2012 I will say a few things about it later on.
That's true.
However, will such a point be enough to make a console version? After all, very few people use a mouse and keyboard on their console. Even if you use a keyboard for typing and surfing it won't necessarily work well when you're playing.
As a person who has been dealing with Star Citizen almost daily since October 2012 I will say a few things about it later on.
That's true.
However, will such a point be enough to make a console version? After all, very few people use a mouse and keyboard on their console. Even if you use a keyboard for typing and surfing it won't necessarily work well when you're playing.
To the FP64 topic (5:04 in the video):
You need 64 bit for such a game and CIGs decision to go from float (FP32) to double (FP64) was the obvious solution at first but in my opinion it is still the wrong one. The right solution is INT32 and FP32. However, I would have gone straight to INT64 and FP32 because with a modern CPU it would have been just as fast and the problem would have been solved once and for all because you can specify every point within a whole galaxy with striking accuracy. With FP64 CIG can only make one solar system with the same accuracy.
Changing an engine from FP32 to FP64 was in principle a job where you have to find and change all the corresponding places. INT32 and FP32 would have required more effort because you have to think more. When the engine was able to make 8 km with FP32 before FP64 gives level sizes from ~2 light hours at 1 mm accuracy. In comparison, INT32 and FP32 corresponds to ~15 light hours with the same accuracy (half of it because we are moving from the center in one direction).
With an INT32 and FP32 a higher accuracy can be achieved. The complete FP pipeline is calculated with float (FP32) which makes it significantly faster. In any case, it is also more complex to implement than simply turning float into double.
If CIG doesn't want absolut realistic sizes with an entire walkable universe you can work around with FP64 for the price of the higher processor load.
Character creator (9:25 in video):
What SC distinguishes from most other games is the fact that even the head shape can change radically. In most video games with a character costumizer and wearable items the face can be changed while the head shape remains similar. This is mainly done to make caps, glasses, etc. fit well. However, CIG developed a system that allows them to adapt the item to the shape of the head.
They may want to try something similar for bodies which would eneble the player to create thicker and thinner characters.
Hair tech is much better now but they have to create the new hair at first. Hair in this one is made with old tech.
You need 64 bit for such a game and CIGs decision to go from float (FP32) to double (FP64) was the obvious solution at first but in my opinion it is still the wrong one. The right solution is INT32 and FP32. However, I would have gone straight to INT64 and FP32 because with a modern CPU it would have been just as fast and the problem would have been solved once and for all because you can specify every point within a whole galaxy with striking accuracy. With FP64 CIG can only make one solar system with the same accuracy.
Changing an engine from FP32 to FP64 was in principle a job where you have to find and change all the corresponding places. INT32 and FP32 would have required more effort because you have to think more. When the engine was able to make 8 km with FP32 before FP64 gives level sizes from ~2 light hours at 1 mm accuracy. In comparison, INT32 and FP32 corresponds to ~15 light hours with the same accuracy (half of it because we are moving from the center in one direction).
With an INT32 and FP32 a higher accuracy can be achieved. The complete FP pipeline is calculated with float (FP32) which makes it significantly faster. In any case, it is also more complex to implement than simply turning float into double.
If CIG doesn't want absolut realistic sizes with an entire walkable universe you can work around with FP64 for the price of the higher processor load.
Character creator (9:25 in video):
What SC distinguishes from most other games is the fact that even the head shape can change radically. In most video games with a character costumizer and wearable items the face can be changed while the head shape remains similar. This is mainly done to make caps, glasses, etc. fit well. However, CIG developed a system that allows them to adapt the item to the shape of the head.
They may want to try something similar for bodies which would eneble the player to create thicker and thinner characters.
Hair tech is much better now but they have to create the new hair at first. Hair in this one is made with old tech.
Last edited:
There might be a general dislike towards that game here, but in the graphics department it's the best looking thing this generation on all platforms. Like DF notes it's a next-gen experience, if we are getting close to that on all games next gen no-one can complain!
Also a nice use of SSD drives.....
Because unlike every other game ever, it never needs to release so RSI can keep rewriting the engine with the latest tech. It'll always be the best looking game as it'll have the very latest tech ever, and it'll never release as a result because, unlike the HZDs and Uncharteds and everything else out there who pick a release date and chose a tech at the time of creation that'll aim to release for that deadline, RSI will have to keep postponing release to make it better.
Not having the same technical constraints as everyone else renders RSI's achievements far less impressive than their raw appearance seems.
Yes that's why i said in the graphics department, not as a game itself, though some might actually enjoy playing/exploring the game. HZD and uncharted would be kinda impossible to look like that as they kinda much are limited by the hardware their running on, too.
Never played it myself but watched someone playing it, maybe someday if i got a new pc
I think you've missed my point. The graphics aren't as impressive because they aren't working with the same limitations. It's like game-engine demo graphics being so much better than the in-game graphics of games on that engine. What games look this good? :
If HZD was funded the same way as StarCitizen, we'd be looking at new raytraced graphics as Guerilla tell us they've now postponed HZD to PS5 instead of releasing it on PS4, so that they can really give the player the best possible experience. It'd be the most beautiful robot dinosaur simulation possible, and no-one would enjoy playing the game.
StarCitizen hasn't put a cap on their hardware or a deadline on their software, so they can keep pushing graphics without boundaries. It's basically cheating and of course no other game can compete, because they have real-world constraints. And within those constraints, real developers produce far better results proportionally. On lesser hardware with time constraints, real devs make fabulous looking games that actually get released and people get to play. Things like Guerilla's reconstruction tech, and snow tech, and the myriad of other clever solutions created instead of relying on hardware to just get faster. Some of the optimisations RSI have added such as content streaming are laughable in the fact the were absent from the beginning, and they were just brute-forcing everything.
Seen as a piece of software engineering, SC just ain't that great. Look at what the folk at Media Molecule are doing, inventing a whole new renderer and tool-chain producing amazing results on a < 2TF console using hardware over 6 years old. Or ClayBook, created on a shoe-string with a new geometry representation using compute-based raytracing. Rainbow Six invented CBR to get more out the hardware. Has RSI invented anything useful, or are they just chasing after all the work everyone else does?
If HZD was funded the same way as StarCitizen, we'd be looking at new raytraced graphics as Guerilla tell us they've now postponed HZD to PS5 instead of releasing it on PS4, so that they can really give the player the best possible experience. It'd be the most beautiful robot dinosaur simulation possible, and no-one would enjoy playing the game.
StarCitizen hasn't put a cap on their hardware or a deadline on their software, so they can keep pushing graphics without boundaries. It's basically cheating and of course no other game can compete, because they have real-world constraints. And within those constraints, real developers produce far better results proportionally. On lesser hardware with time constraints, real devs make fabulous looking games that actually get released and people get to play. Things like Guerilla's reconstruction tech, and snow tech, and the myriad of other clever solutions created instead of relying on hardware to just get faster. Some of the optimisations RSI have added such as content streaming are laughable in the fact the were absent from the beginning, and they were just brute-forcing everything.
Seen as a piece of software engineering, SC just ain't that great. Look at what the folk at Media Molecule are doing, inventing a whole new renderer and tool-chain producing amazing results on a < 2TF console using hardware over 6 years old. Or ClayBook, created on a shoe-string with a new geometry representation using compute-based raytracing. Rainbow Six invented CBR to get more out the hardware. Has RSI invented anything useful, or are they just chasing after all the work everyone else does?
Keep in mind that the game could have looked much better if it was less ambitious. IMO the developers are stucked in an overly ambitious project and it affects the game in every departments : gameplay + graphics.
Btw, even if we consider it's the best looking game on the market, it still lacks the Crysis effect which was way beyond everything on the market at its time.
True but still, it's doing next-gen, ssd is being used to stream the massive environments, fast travel and huge speedup in loading (11 times faster). You basically need an ssd for this game. The physics are on another level and the attention to detail is unseen in other games so far. Massive environments filled with assets that fill them. If this is what ps5 can do or atleast close to it were in for a great gen graphics wise.
Yes it's cheating but on pc tech doesn't stand still for 7 years, like DF explained. Game will never be finished , alpha state forever, and it's not on PS or it ain't a crysis but the tech is amazing just to be able to play it, tech demos like nvidias heretic can't be played.
From a purely visual perspective, ill be shocked if this isnt surpassed quite handily by next gen console games.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
And you know, will actually be released.
This was not a good video by DF, largely for the reasons Shifty Geezer has already mentioned. A couple of times Alex mentions this is 'just' an alpha, like it's an accomplishment after 7 years in development!
It lacks polish but the look of planet is not very good, something like RDR2 or Death Stranding have better terrain. After this is an Alpha but this is 7 years of development like RDR 2 and they deliver a game. Mid gen and PC version of RDR2 looks better than this imo.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
It's an eternally changing tech demo made for unrealistic PC requirements.
Yes it looks good but it never looks very playable.
I get that DF has always this "fanboy" approach where everything is always spectacular. It's their format.
But it's a bit irresponsible of them to praise this game like that and not mention the predatory whale-oriented cash grab it has become.
Yes it looks good but it never looks very playable.
I get that DF has always this "fanboy" approach where everything is always spectacular. It's their format.
But it's a bit irresponsible of them to praise this game like that and not mention the predatory whale-oriented cash grab it has become.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Tools and Software