I read an earlier interview of Chris Roberts, that make very clear that the engine choice was wrong and the approach to level of fidelity was wrong,
Link please
Have fun
"
When I brought up the graphical challenges in creating ships with so much detail, he pointed out that the game is set in space, and that allows you to "get away with" much in terms of design and graphical fidelity.
"(Space) allows you to have the appearance of a lot more detail and fidelity than you really have. The same goes with the ship and character models. We can afford to have ten times as many polygons as a typical triple-A game, and part of the reason is that yes, we're on high-end PC hardware, but the other part is that we're in space. We don't have to worry about rendering an environment, or a city in first-person mode. We can spend all our processing time on really high-fidelity space ships or high fidelity characters," he explained.
Think of it this way: to create a realistic city simulation you have to have a high quality ground texture, along with buildings, streets, parks, signs, and it all has to exist in three dimensional space. We know what cities look like, so you have to nail a huge number of complicated details to make the player believe they're inside a realistic city. In space you have... well, empty space. If you create a beautiful, moving starfield in the background, place a single space station in the middle field, and then put your high-quality ship in the middle of the screen in third-person mode you suddenly have a "realistic" representation of space, and you've only used three graphical elements.
This is an incredible oversimplification of the work that goes into a well-designed game in space, but you get the idea. The environment allows you to focus much more attention on what's important to the player than perhaps any other setting.
all in a generic samey backdrops and same stations without story context and all done by text windows and lists while the rest of it takes place in your imagination.
You are talking about the Elite: Dangerous of "today" and comparing with Star Citizen of the "future". Because you know that today all the "walking" on ships means absolutely nothing for the SC gameplay, right? Just their "loading" time, for all those things that has no meaning, make a lot of people simply quit and uninstall their game.
Why do you presume that E:D will spend the next years sleeping, waiting for SC to come out with their "dreams in advance", when the whole business model of Frontier is actually making profit on expansions, and to people buy them, they have to add serious value to the game?
Do you really believe that those guys that are in the SAME company for more than 30 years (no, they never bankruptcy/abandoned/sold any 3 earlier companies), will just refuse to make expansions to have a level of income because they are hypnotized by the "dreams of CR" and won't dare to do nothing to compete with that future game to come on 2017/18? Can't you simply see that they always will be more effective because are not stuck in the "I have to make a perfect plant, or it can't be out, because immersion is looking to a plant, or ship parts moving in third person view - that basically has no meaning, because you can't play in 3rd person view"?
Isn't obvious that the reason for competitors to keep their mouth shout and not opening the gates of information just to keep people paying earlier, is that they do not want to make the competitor's job easier?
There is a basic market rule in any industry my friend, that if you do not follow, you can be sure that you stay behind:
"Don't tell your competitors what you plan to do, so earlier, when you have no capacity to be more effective and releasing it in timely manner than the competitors".
And careful. I have the impression that by 2017/18, "immersion" won't be just "exchanging menus by meaningless high-fidelity claustrophobic scenarios that adds nothing more than 'oh, shinny', but the cost for the gaming, and expansions on timely manner, is too big".
What sounds "shinny" today will really be sooo important in 2/3 years? With all the trend of games throwing walls away, instead been built under wall-basis? Even today? Hmmmm...
I read an earlier interview of Chris Roberts, that make very clear that the engine choice was wrong and the approach to level of fidelity was wrong,
Link please
Have fun
"
When I brought up the graphical challenges in creating ships with so much detail, he pointed out that the game is set in space, and that allows you to "get away with" much in terms of design and graphical fidelity.
"(Space) allows you to have the appearance of a lot more detail and fidelity than you really have. The same goes with the ship and character models. We can afford to have ten times as many polygons as a typical triple-A game, and part of the reason is that yes, we're on high-end PC hardware, but the other part is that we're in space. We don't have to worry about rendering an environment, or a city in first-person mode. We can spend all our processing time on really high-fidelity space ships or high fidelity characters," he explained.
Think of it this way: to create a realistic city simulation you have to have a high quality ground texture, along with buildings, streets, parks, signs, and it all has to exist in three dimensional space. We know what cities look like, so you have to nail a huge number of complicated details to make the player believe they're inside a realistic city. In space you have... well, empty space. If you create a beautiful, moving starfield in the background, place a single space station in the middle field, and then put your high-quality ship in the middle of the screen in third-person mode you suddenly have a "realistic" representation of space, and you've only used three graphical elements.
This is an incredible oversimplification of the work that goes into a well-designed game in space, but you get the idea. The environment allows you to focus much more attention on what's important to the player than perhaps any other setting.
"
And where in this text does he say anything about the grafic engine being "wrong" and the level of fidelity being "wrong" ?
Please do not only post the text, post the URL link !
I read an earlier interview of Chris Roberts, that make very clear that the engine choice was wrong and the approach to level of fidelity was wrong,
Link please
Have fun
"
When I brought up the graphical challenges in creating ships with so much detail, he pointed out that the game is set in space, and that allows you to "get away with" much in terms of design and graphical fidelity.
"(Space) allows you to have the appearance of a lot more detail and fidelity than you really have. The same goes with the ship and character models. We can afford to have ten times as many polygons as a typical triple-A game, and part of the reason is that yes, we're on high-end PC hardware, but the other part is that we're in space. We don't have to worry about rendering an environment, or a city in first-person mode. We can spend all our processing time on really high-fidelity space ships or high fidelity characters," he explained.
Think of it this way: to create a realistic city simulation you have to have a high quality ground texture, along with buildings, streets, parks, signs, and it all has to exist in three dimensional space. We know what cities look like, so you have to nail a huge number of complicated details to make the player believe they're inside a realistic city. In space you have... well, empty space. If you create a beautiful, moving starfield in the background, place a single space station in the middle field, and then put your high-quality ship in the middle of the screen in third-person mode you suddenly have a "realistic" representation of space, and you've only used three graphical elements.
This is an incredible oversimplification of the work that goes into a well-designed game in space, but you get the idea. The environment allows you to focus much more attention on what's important to the player than perhaps any other setting.
"
And where in this text does he say anything about the grafic engine being "wrong" and the level of fidelity being "wrong" ?
Please do not only post the text, post the URL link !
Artificial gravity (and lack thereof) has been mentioned while discussing the FPS modules. Here is a "lore" article where CIG fleshes out the concept of artificial gravity with the help of the backers / the community:
Artificial gravity (and lack thereof) has been mentioned while discussing the FPS modules. Here is a "lore" article where CIG fleshes out the concept of artificial gravity with the help of the backers / the community:
the gravity is clearly not complete in this PRE ALPHA DEMO, I bet the weapons will have knockback, or at least something that explains the dampening of zero-g knockback
the gravity is clearly not complete in this PRE ALPHA DEMO, I bet the weapons will have knockback, or at least something that explains the dampening of zero-g knockback
Simply using (2014 tech) recoilless Gyrojet weapons (=every bullet is a small rocket) would explain the lack of knockback.
the gravity is clearly not complete in this PRE ALPHA DEMO, I bet the weapons will have knockback, or at least something that explains the dampening of zero-g knockback
Simply using (2014 tech) recoilless Gyrojet weapons (=every bullet is a small rocket) would explain the lack of knockback.
Have fun
wow.. didn't even know such tech exists. Just googled it. Awesome.
you not only see the FPS demo but also quite a bit of FPS features being shown in detail in the hangar. A lone marine walks around, drives the buggy, inspects his weapon, shoots, aims, runs around and breathes heavily into his helmet, fogging up the visor. CR explains some cool features of the engine that are not immediately obvious but greatly help with the immersion (things like eye movement, vision stability while running, correct positioning of weapon carrying arms, recoil effects etc.)
For all the fans of the Mustang light fighter / starter ship: you can see new Mustang variants lined up in that hangar :-)
Have fun
yeah, this is the better footage as it puts things a bit more in context also mentions of what is still coming until the release in early 2015, e.g. the full motion capturing for animations
Comments
"
When I brought up the graphical challenges in creating ships with so much detail, he pointed out that the game is set in space, and that allows you to "get away with" much in terms of design and graphical fidelity.
"(Space) allows you to have the appearance of a lot more detail and fidelity than you really have. The same goes with the ship and character models. We can afford to have ten times as many polygons as a typical triple-A game, and part of the reason is that yes, we're on high-end PC hardware, but the other part is that we're in space. We don't have to worry about rendering an environment, or a city in first-person mode. We can spend all our processing time on really high-fidelity space ships or high fidelity characters," he explained.
Think of it this way: to create a realistic city simulation you have to have a high quality ground texture, along with buildings, streets, parks, signs, and it all has to exist in three dimensional space. We know what cities look like, so you have to nail a huge number of complicated details to make the player believe they're inside a realistic city. In space you have... well, empty space. If you create a beautiful, moving starfield in the background, place a single space station in the middle field, and then put your high-quality ship in the middle of the screen in third-person mode you suddenly have a "realistic" representation of space, and you've only used three graphical elements.
This is an incredible oversimplification of the work that goes into a well-designed game in space, but you get the idea. The environment allows you to focus much more attention on what's important to the player than perhaps any other setting.
"
You are talking about the Elite: Dangerous of "today" and comparing with Star Citizen of the "future". Because you know that today all the "walking" on ships means absolutely nothing for the SC gameplay, right? Just their "loading" time, for all those things that has no meaning, make a lot of people simply quit and uninstall their game.
Why do you presume that E:D will spend the next years sleeping, waiting for SC to come out with their "dreams in advance", when the whole business model of Frontier is actually making profit on expansions, and to people buy them, they have to add serious value to the game?
Do you really believe that those guys that are in the SAME company for more than 30 years (no, they never bankruptcy/abandoned/sold any 3 earlier companies), will just refuse to make expansions to have a level of income because they are hypnotized by the "dreams of CR" and won't dare to do nothing to compete with that future game to come on 2017/18? Can't you simply see that they always will be more effective because are not stuck in the "I have to make a perfect plant, or it can't be out, because immersion is looking to a plant, or ship parts moving in third person view - that basically has no meaning, because you can't play in 3rd person view"?
Isn't obvious that the reason for competitors to keep their mouth shout and not opening the gates of information just to keep people paying earlier, is that they do not want to make the competitor's job easier?
There is a basic market rule in any industry my friend, that if you do not follow, you can be sure that you stay behind:
"Don't tell your competitors what you plan to do, so earlier, when you have no capacity to be more effective and releasing it in timely manner than the competitors".
And careful. I have the impression that by 2017/18, "immersion" won't be just "exchanging menus by meaningless high-fidelity claustrophobic scenarios that adds nothing more than 'oh, shinny', but the cost for the gaming, and expansions on timely manner, is too big".
What sounds "shinny" today will really be sooo important in 2/3 years? With all the trend of games throwing walls away, instead been built under wall-basis? Even today? Hmmmm...
And where in this text does he say anything about the grafic engine being "wrong" and the level of fidelity being "wrong" ?
Please do not only post the text, post the URL link !
Have fun
You failed to comprehend what I said.
You failed to comprehend what Christopher Roberts said.
Have fun
Artificial gravity (and lack thereof) has been mentioned while discussing the FPS modules. Here is a "lore" article where CIG fleshes out the concept of artificial gravity with the help of the backers / the community:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/spectrum-dispatch/14287-LORE-BUILDER-TWENTY-ONE-ARTIFICIAL-GRAVITY
Go for the HIGGS, Boo, go for the HIGGS !
Have fun
the gravity is clearly not complete in this PRE ALPHA DEMO, I bet the weapons will have knockback, or at least something that explains the dampening of zero-g knockback
Simply using (2014 tech) recoilless Gyrojet weapons (=every bullet is a small rocket) would explain the lack of knockback.
Have fun
wow.. didn't even know such tech exists. Just googled it. Awesome.
yeah, this is the better footage as it puts things a bit more in context also mentions of what is still coming until the release in early 2015, e.g. the full motion capturing for animations