Pretty cool little leak, not sure what is happening with the bike at the end though
A glitch that sometimes happens when you enter different physics grids (e.g. coming from the outside into the inside of a ship). Game was not quite sure where the object is ... looks like "blinking" around ... or a sudden movement in an unexpected direction, when one frame of reference "snaps" into the other frame of reference. This snap effect should be minimal, during the entry into the ramp (from a roleplay perspective : "..when you start to feel the internal gravity field of the ship....") ...... should not happen later and deeper into the ships bay like in this video.
Known bug that is being worked on.
The maneuvering jets firing in all directions is a follow up bug resulting from this bug. To my knowledge that is only a display bug, the jets are not really generating thrust.
I saw that series of videos. But didnt want to link them. But maybe its OK to link them now, but will wait and see how theyre received. But the wheels and jumping are not surprising but in the grand scheme not all that major.
There are other videos that show more important issues. But those might have been taken down as people got nervous and were worried about losing access. Guess they werent smart enough to cover up their watermarks...
But the update is 72hrs in now and since we havent seen any triumphant 'this is the best thing ever' from all the people testing it (or even a small portion) then its safe to say its very underwhelming. Obviously there are going to be bugs and problems but since many supporters completely ignore anything at all negative the fact they cant find much to cheer about is another one of those unspoken 'proofs'.
I imagine once this gets put on the PTU for everyone to 'experience' there will either be a 'well we can wait for 4.0 (or 3.5, or pick any new number) to look forward to'. But I suspect this is going to end up being the infamous MVP. Long ways off still but from what I have read and not read this is what most people thought it was going to be and the people thinking it was actually going to be the literal game changer, reality is now setting in.
But the best part was the spin of guys who are Evocati (and also paid SC shills) trying to spin it as a few went to Twitch to makes innocuous comments and took Q&A (apparently with the greenlight from CiG) and when the chat filled with pertinent and hard hitting questions they couldnt deflect from they shut it down. But the mantra was "its an early alpha and its what you would expect', and I heard more than one say 'if its 3,4,5, years before its released I am ok with that'. So those things from cheerleaders and shills paint a pretty telling picture.
I frequent these boards since 2010 and you are by far the most toxic user i've ever seen. You top even legends in the SWTOR hate-storm that took place a few years back prior to its release. Your posts are nothing but spite, insults, condescend to anything and anyone SC related. Libels isn't adequate enough to characterize them. It almost feels that you have personal issues with CR and CIG.
And yet you remain untouched by the mods while others far less toxic, if at all, and provocative receive ban after ban. Which is indicative about how things are run around here. One of the reasons i only visit once per week.
well as long as you visit once a day and read what I contribute youll be better off for it I can assure you. Pretty much everything I have said since 3.0 dropped has been confirmed either directly or indirectly. How that can be construed as 'toxic' O have no idea.
I also dont see anything in that post you quoted that is 'toxic' its all factual and based on observations anyone can make. And based on videos anyone can look at. (although some have been taken down.)
Not to mention I was willing to give them a pass on that glitch, first because its an over correction of the 'floating ship' issue they have been having and secondly because it was probably taken right at release. So I suspect they will figure that one out pretty quickly (or maybe not).
The over reaction by the pro crowd is exposed time and time again and comments like yours show just how out of touch you are with what people are saying but anything that has ANY negative connotation to it is 'toxic'.
Pretty cool little leak, not sure what is happening with the bike at the end though
A glitch that sometimes happens when you enter different physics grids (e.g. coming from the outside into the inside of a ship). Game was not quite sure where the object is ... looks like "blinking" around ... or a sudden movement in an unexpected direction, when one frame of reference "snaps" into the other frame of reference. This snap effect should be minimal, during the entry into the ramp (from a roleplay perspective : "..when you start to feel the internal gravity field of the ship....") ...... should not happen later and deeper into the ships bay like in this video.
Known bug that is being worked on.
The maneuvering jets firing in all directions is a follow up bug resulting from this bug. To my knowledge that is only a display bug, the jets are not really generating thrust.
Have fun
yeah but remember that video that is nearly a year old now where they played that (alleged) gameplay movie that showed them doing this flawlessly (other than the thing completely disappearing and reappearing). And I said it was all totally fake. BECAUSE of what that video leak demonstrates? Remember that?
Hmm still havent quite figured that out yet huh?
But I am glad someone put that up. There was a similar one, that was actually worse but it got taken down. I wanted to link it and comment (since my post about that whole presentation last year being fake was laughed at so widely). But no its not just a glitch its called not having the ability to do it the way they claim they can and more than likely it isnt even possible to make it work in 'open' space. And the reason it MIGHT work deeper inside is more than likely because they have made an instance or a phase or whatever you want to call it where the person and the bike are in their own little bubble. But we will see more of this I am sure.
There are multiple ways to voice your opinion toward a game. If you are not vested in the game however, I do not understand why there is so much venom. Why not simply walk away, it does not affect you or your pocket.
@rodairn - Sometimes your posts do come off toxic, as you are always pointing out the flaw, but I do not remember seeing anything about what you have seen, or what is planned for SC that you actually like. (If you have, then please forgive me, I just can not remember seeing something from you at time of writing this.)
Having been in management, one of the things you learn is that bad news can be received and taken more seriously if there is some good included within the conversation.
I am nicely vested toward SC, once it releases from Evocati, I most likely will be in one of the middle of the PTU invites. I do hold a black card, but just barely. I have had to fight very strongly to avoid supporting more. That being said, if 3.0 is even half of what I expect it to be, that will power to not further support will most likely be overcome.
I do not expect it to be perfect, I will be trying to test out everything that is in the 3.0 list, why? Because that is what is committed that is there. I wont get upset that it is not there, what I will do is file a bug that the feature does not work. I will not run to the forums and cry that it is not finished. What positive support does that provide the development of the product.
I believe we are in alpha, this is an alpha position of a piece of software that is just finalizing its foundation. Under any other company, you would be under extreme NDA during this phase, similar to that of the evocati, if even allowed to be non badged from the production house.
I have no problems with internal dev's vetting out the builds, then going to evocati for a larger pool of smoke screen bug testing. A group of 50 devs (guess, do not know size of internal QA team at CIG) can only think of so many permutations of ways to purposely, or accidentally break things. Where as the hundreds in evocati do a few things, more minds to test different things. Purposely breaking them, making funny video's etc. (half the fun of finding bugs) but also loading up the server farm with hundreds versus sub 100's.
Graphical issues (physics grid, bouncing wheels on tarmac), that is to be expected at this level of development. I would think it is a huge step in the right direction that the ship does not immediately blow up in that video, that is progress.
Having core functions like item 2.0 not working, or subsumption not working. Where those are new functions to 3.0 for us to test, that is a bit more critical. That is the plumbing of the game, and far more worth a higher level of scrutiny. But it is alpha, things are very subject to change based on feedback, or finding a better way to deploy the feature. Refactoring is a way of life in software development.
However, this should not even be a focus of conversation, as this is supposed to be the "private, no view" time frame of this release. CIG knows that if the public got it in the current state they would be crucified for the little stuff. But they need the numbers pounding on it before they release it to the thousands coming into the cycle.
Come back to us once it is on PTU (no NDA), but even better yet when it is released to the GA servers. Where we are still in alpha, it is not a "public alpha" until which time it is on the GA servers.
Schedules, where it is frustrating for many, the reality of it is, you can not anticipate everything. You could be the best Project Manager there is. Things happen that are out of your control. So the question is, Time, Money, or Scope.
The Project Management Triangle (called also the Triple Constraint, Iron Triangle and "Project Triangle") is a model of the constraints of project management. While its origins are unclear, it has been used since at least the 1950s. It contends that:
The quality of work is constrained by the project's budget, deadlines and scope (features).
The project manager can trade between constraints.
Changes in one constraint necessitate changes in others to compensate or quality will suffer.
For example, a project can be completed faster by increasing budget or cutting scope. Similarly, increasing scope may require equivalent increases in budget and schedule. Cutting budget without adjusting schedule or scope will lead to lower quality.
We all know that there are only so many hours in a week, and if budget was not an issue (not to start a funding discussion here) that just because money is available throwing additional money would not speed things up. Most often in software development you have a very tight team and only 1 person can work on 1 issue at at time. You cant throw 10 people at 500 lines of code to fix it. They will step on each other and it would be a mess.
CIG has 400+, not all 400 are able to work on subsumption as an example, there is a subsumption team, and a ship physics team, etc. more money does not make it faster here. More money means more teams, more teams means more parallel development, versus serial development.
So our "cost" is fixed in this exercise.
This brings us to schedule, everyone wants it faster. (Myself included!) but I am aware, knowing we have a constant in our equation of cost. To shorten the Schedule, we have to shorten the Scope, or sacrifice quality.
There is a fine balancing act as you can see to properly manage this project. Everyone knows, CR is not willing to sacrifice scope and quality. So what does that mean to our schedule. (Personally, I am ok with this, but that is my opinion.)
I have read reports of "well, this features was added, why add features when 3.0 is not out" The short answer that I would put forth is because they can. Since they have many teams. If a feature is finished that does not rely on a piece that is problematic (net code, subsumption, item2.0) why not add it to the build. They do not lose anything, and only have things to gain. Ships are a huge part of this. The ship team does not require much of the plumbing to be finished prior to working on the next ship. Graphics does not require subsumption for much of its use as another. However, I would also put forth, this has delayed us as well. So it is back to the balancing act, does the minor detour to add a feature, or refactor a feature outweigh getting things in our hands. Cost, Schedule, Scope, Quality <--- Focus on the quality please.
There is a reason it is called constructive criticism. You can challenge the state of an item, that is in your right, each and every one of us have that right to do so. The majority of those here would welcome criticism, if only there were some valuable constructive comments along with the criticism. But let this come once the builds are released to the general populace.
I have written enough, I am sure that even though I tried to state my opinion here and how I review the status of SC, it will collide harshly with some here.
My only ask, do not stop criticism, but please offer something constructive as well. All of the negativity just is depressing when we have far more things in our world to be concerned about than a game made of pixels.
Terrible FPS performance on the player's parts but still, got to get a sense of what's possible.
Every time Goonsquad/SA/DS post salt on Star Citizen, I spend more money on it. Every time a mentally disturbed former backer or Elite CMDR toxic emo comments, I spend more money on it. Every time they refuse to answer why they spend so much time arguing about a game they don't even like, I spend more money on it. Want to watch the world burn because you can't have your way? You got whats coming to you.
And yet you remain untouched by the mods while others far less toxic, if at all, and provocative receive ban after ban. Which is indicative about how things are run around here. One of the reasons i only visit once per week.
Pretty cool little leak, not sure what is happening with the bike at the end though
A glitch that sometimes happens when you enter different physics grids (e.g. coming from the outside into the inside of a ship). Game was not quite sure where the object is ... looks like "blinking" around ... or a sudden movement in an unexpected direction, when one frame of reference "snaps" into the other frame of reference. This snap effect should be minimal, during the entry into the ramp (from a roleplay perspective : "..when you start to feel the internal gravity field of the ship....") ...... should not happen later and deeper into the ships bay like in this video.
Known bug that is being worked on.
The maneuvering jets firing in all directions is a follow up bug resulting from this bug. To my knowledge that is only a display bug, the jets are not really generating thrust.
Have fun
Where did you get your information from? Are you a game dev? because what you say here is not exactly what happens.
The flickering you see is based on the parenting to the object container which just slow though the object disappears. It reappears at a fixed point because the translation from one to the other object didn't carry over the entry point. When the player leaves the bike, it no longer has a controller on it and becomes a world object though needs physics because it is a Rigidbody, the physics of the parent container are not applied properly so the bike bugs around in its own physics, ignoring the container physics (not ignoring the mesh of the container - bounces of the walls).
So in conclusion - the flicker of the object has nothing to do with "physic grids" - (whatever they may are) - There shouldn't be any "snap effect" this would be a bug not an effect - There are no "frame of reference" (Whatever this may be) - maneuvering jets are based on character controller this could be caused by broken physics (The controller does not know where its heading to)
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
Comments
Known bug that is being worked on.
The maneuvering jets firing in all directions is a follow up bug resulting from this bug. To my knowledge that is only a display bug, the jets are not really generating thrust.
Have fun
And i like most space games i can get my hands on - playing E:D, Everspace, No Mans Sky, EVE, FTL, Freelancer, SWG Emu etc. etc.
Have fun
I also dont see anything in that post you quoted that is 'toxic' its all factual and based on observations anyone can make. And based on videos anyone can look at. (although some have been taken down.)
Not to mention I was willing to give them a pass on that glitch, first because its an over correction of the 'floating ship' issue they have been having and secondly because it was probably taken right at release. So I suspect they will figure that one out pretty quickly (or maybe not).
The over reaction by the pro crowd is exposed time and time again and comments like yours show just how out of touch you are with what people are saying but anything that has ANY negative connotation to it is 'toxic'.
Hmm still havent quite figured that out yet huh?
But I am glad someone put that up. There was a similar one, that was actually worse but it got taken down. I wanted to link it and comment (since my post about that whole presentation last year being fake was laughed at so widely). But no its not just a glitch its called not having the ability to do it the way they claim they can and more than likely it isnt even possible to make it work in 'open' space. And the reason it MIGHT work deeper inside is more than likely because they have made an instance or a phase or whatever you want to call it where the person and the bike are in their own little bubble. But we will see more of this I am sure.
There are multiple ways to voice your opinion toward a game. If you are not vested in the game however, I do not understand why there is so much venom. Why not simply walk away, it does not affect you or your pocket.
@rodairn - Sometimes your posts do come off toxic, as you are always pointing out the flaw, but I do not remember seeing anything about what you have seen, or what is planned for SC that you actually like. (If you have, then please forgive me, I just can not remember seeing something from you at time of writing this.)
Having been in management, one of the things you learn is that bad news can be received and taken more seriously if there is some good included within the conversation.
I am nicely vested toward SC, once it releases from Evocati, I most likely will be in one of the middle of the PTU invites. I do hold a black card, but just barely. I have had to fight very strongly to avoid supporting more. That being said, if 3.0 is even half of what I expect it to be, that will power to not further support will most likely be overcome.
I do not expect it to be perfect, I will be trying to test out everything that is in the 3.0 list, why? Because that is what is committed that is there. I wont get upset that it is not there, what I will do is file a bug that the feature does not work. I will not run to the forums and cry that it is not finished. What positive support does that provide the development of the product.
I believe we are in alpha, this is an alpha position of a piece of software that is just finalizing its foundation. Under any other company, you would be under extreme NDA during this phase, similar to that of the evocati, if even allowed to be non badged from the production house.
I have no problems with internal dev's vetting out the builds, then going to evocati for a larger pool of smoke screen bug testing. A group of 50 devs (guess, do not know size of internal QA team at CIG) can only think of so many permutations of ways to purposely, or accidentally break things. Where as the hundreds in evocati do a few things, more minds to test different things. Purposely breaking them, making funny video's etc. (half the fun of finding bugs) but also loading up the server farm with hundreds versus sub 100's.
Graphical issues (physics grid, bouncing wheels on tarmac), that is to be expected at this level of development. I would think it is a huge step in the right direction that the ship does not immediately blow up in that video, that is progress.
Having core functions like item 2.0 not working, or subsumption not working. Where those are new functions to 3.0 for us to test, that is a bit more critical. That is the plumbing of the game, and far more worth a higher level of scrutiny. But it is alpha, things are very subject to change based on feedback, or finding a better way to deploy the feature. Refactoring is a way of life in software development.
However, this should not even be a focus of conversation, as this is supposed to be the "private, no view" time frame of this release. CIG knows that if the public got it in the current state they would be crucified for the little stuff. But they need the numbers pounding on it before they release it to the thousands coming into the cycle.
Come back to us once it is on PTU (no NDA), but even better yet when it is released to the GA servers. Where we are still in alpha, it is not a "public alpha" until which time it is on the GA servers.
Schedules, where it is frustrating for many, the reality of it is, you can not anticipate everything. You could be the best Project Manager there is. Things happen that are out of your control. So the question is, Time, Money, or Scope.
The Project Management Triangle (called also the Triple Constraint, Iron Triangle and "Project Triangle") is a model of the constraints of project management. While its origins are unclear, it has been used since at least the 1950s. It contends that:
For example, a project can be completed faster by increasing budget or cutting scope. Similarly, increasing scope may require equivalent increases in budget and schedule. Cutting budget without adjusting schedule or scope will lead to lower quality.
We all know that there are only so many hours in a week, and if budget was not an issue (not to start a funding discussion here) that just because money is available throwing additional money would not speed things up. Most often in software development you have a very tight team and only 1 person can work on 1 issue at at time. You cant throw 10 people at 500 lines of code to fix it. They will step on each other and it would be a mess.
CIG has 400+, not all 400 are able to work on subsumption as an example, there is a subsumption team, and a ship physics team, etc. more money does not make it faster here. More money means more teams, more teams means more parallel development, versus serial development.
So our "cost" is fixed in this exercise.
This brings us to schedule, everyone wants it faster. (Myself included!) but I am aware, knowing we have a constant in our equation of cost. To shorten the Schedule, we have to shorten the Scope, or sacrifice quality.
There is a fine balancing act as you can see to properly manage this project. Everyone knows, CR is not willing to sacrifice scope and quality. So what does that mean to our schedule. (Personally, I am ok with this, but that is my opinion.)
I have read reports of "well, this features was added, why add features when 3.0 is not out" The short answer that I would put forth is because they can. Since they have many teams. If a feature is finished that does not rely on a piece that is problematic (net code, subsumption, item2.0) why not add it to the build. They do not lose anything, and only have things to gain. Ships are a huge part of this. The ship team does not require much of the plumbing to be finished prior to working on the next ship. Graphics does not require subsumption for much of its use as another. However, I would also put forth, this has delayed us as well. So it is back to the balancing act, does the minor detour to add a feature, or refactor a feature outweigh getting things in our hands. Cost, Schedule, Scope, Quality <--- Focus on the quality please.
There is a reason it is called constructive criticism. You can challenge the state of an item, that is in your right, each and every one of us have that right to do so. The majority of those here would welcome criticism, if only there were some valuable constructive comments along with the criticism. But let this come once the builds are released to the general populace.
I have written enough, I am sure that even though I tried to state my opinion here and how I review the status of SC, it will collide harshly with some here.
My only ask, do not stop criticism, but please offer something constructive as well. All of the negativity just is depressing when we have far more things in our world to be concerned about than a game made of pixels.
-izz
Have fun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=57&v=sE10q0SdK-U
Have fun
Clearly made by a goon.
Have fun
Because it's just the sort of thing the goons would do, taking the piss out of people that might actually come up with an evocati oath.
You may want to keep the other 7.6 billion people in mind that potentially can make a joke in grafical form these days.
So it is not "clearly made by a goon" ... it is your OPINION that it is made by a goon, but you have no evidence to convert that opinion into fact.
Have fun
Have fun
The flickering you see is based on the parenting to the object container which just slow though the object disappears.
It reappears at a fixed point because the translation from one to the other object didn't carry over the entry point.
When the player leaves the bike, it no longer has a controller on it and becomes a world object though needs physics because it is a Rigidbody, the physics of the parent container are not applied properly so the bike bugs around in its own physics, ignoring the container physics (not ignoring the mesh of the container - bounces of the walls).
So in conclusion
- the flicker of the object has nothing to do with "physic grids" - (whatever they may are)
- There shouldn't be any "snap effect" this would be a bug not an effect
- There are no "frame of reference" (Whatever this may be)
- maneuvering jets are based on character controller this could be caused by broken physics (The controller does not know where its heading to)
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.