Star Citizen

A place for all the city-builders, world-creators, transport managers, block-arrangers and intergalactic explorers.
User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 07 Sep 2016, 01:48

Disruptor4 wrote:uh-oh spaghetti-o...
http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/jon-marti ... ntil-2017/
Read a translation of the interview (its in german) and I wouldn't call it so cut and dry - he didn't say it'd be done in 2017, just that it should be finished in 1, 2 or 3 months or some such - then it'd need some polishing. Read into that whatever you will. I imagine more information will be forthcoming in a month or so at Citizencon. Also even the S42 campaign has some planetside missions apparently so that stuff must be further along than i thought.

The single player missions are all done, they've done play throughs, have had them for quite a while seemingly - I believe the whole thing is feature locked and they're just in the last stretch, finishing off some ships and nailing down some of the content as well as the AI subsumption functionality. What the reality is behind the scenes, who knows :) Still seems close... probably.

The cool news is the people who have been working on all the UEE and Vanduul ships will soon be switching to non S42 required ships as single player content will be complete.
0 x

User avatar
bender
Posts: 105
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 18:08

Re: Star Citizen

Post by bender » 07 Sep 2016, 15:01

Yeah, though the article doesn't mention Chris Roberts said all the content etc will be done sometime around october to december, but he wants to polish things to the point he is happy with it. So it could be out by the end of the year, but being Chris Roberts, its highly unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if its not out until at least April next year. There's so much that needs polishing that is evident in things like the flight model and player movement.

I never expected it to be out this year. I don't think anyone else really did either.
0 x
Asus P8P67|2600K @4.5GHz-EK WC|16GB DDR3|Crucial MX100 512GB|HD6970 2GB-Aquacomputer WC|MCP35X|Obsidian 800D|X-fi Titanium|AD900

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 07 Sep 2016, 15:07

Player movement is supposedly addressed in the star marine release of the next patch of the persistent universe. Should see stuff like vaulting and improved animations, as well as fast entry and exit of certain ships being implemented, mostly s42 ships I imagine. Proof will be in the pudding... at least s42 won't need the new network code.

Play the persistent universe in offline mode and it's actually pretty damned good. (Have to rename maps to fool sc that it's a free flight map :p)

I am not getting my hopes up for a Christmas release but stranger things have happened haha
0 x

User avatar
bender
Posts: 105
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 18:08

Re: Star Citizen

Post by bender » 07 Sep 2016, 20:37

Well, I'm not necessarily talking about adding player movement functionality (cover etc). Its more that the player just feels clunky to me. Hopefully it is at least partially addressed in the star marine update.

I might try playing the PU offline. I hadn't thought of trying that. I'd like to see how it performs on my older hardware (how much of the drop in FPS is network issues or my GPU).
0 x
Asus P8P67|2600K @4.5GHz-EK WC|16GB DDR3|Crucial MX100 512GB|HD6970 2GB-Aquacomputer WC|MCP35X|Obsidian 800D|X-fi Titanium|AD900

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 09 Oct 2016, 00:07

1 million in funding in 13 hours? What?

Oh....

Image

In other news, 8am EST monday morning is Citcon... should get to see some more procedural tech demo as well as a squadron 42 mission.

WTB 2.6 already.
0 x

User avatar
Matty
Posts: 1109
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 21:41

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Matty » 09 Oct 2016, 00:10

Wish they called it Star Citicon instead of Citcon.
0 x
Matter of fact, I didn't even give you my coat!

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 09 Oct 2016, 00:55

I'm impartial...

Almost looks as though the front of this ship (RSI Polaris) can detach itself ... would make an interesting escape pod or orbital lander or something.
You can also see where the single fighter takes off and lands, kind of cool. They've sold over 2100 of them already - don't think the funding is having any issues eh.

Image
0 x

Karmic Skink
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Dec 2015, 15:30

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Karmic Skink » 10 Oct 2016, 14:34

Having looked through the brochure for the Polaris, I kinda feel that onboard hanger is overly large for a single ship.

I wonder if you made it a zero-g environment, possibly ships could be mounted sideways on port and starboard interior walls as an option?

I guess we will see once they actually start building it.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 10 Oct 2016, 14:42

The depth would be a major issue, I imagine they'll limit how far the platform goes down to make better use of the space for other purposes.
There's a cargo storage deck below and so on and the Polaris isn't meant to be a pocket carrier, if it gets any bigger it'd be the Idris all over again.
The Polaris is meant to bridge the gap and be the smallest corvette/capital ship so I don't imagine they designed the landing pad with the idea of putting multiples in.

What will be interesting will be seeing what the biggest thing that can go into it... looks like a Drake Cutlas might actually fit.
Superhornet or Sabre should be little to no dramas, so that should give it a half decent escort to deal with little ships that the turrets may or may not have issues tracking.

Interestingly it's also got 2 automated turrets, one under the cockpit area and one shooting directly from the rear in the direction of the thrusters... so doesn't seem to need 2 people for those locations. Having said that there's a console in the cockpit for remote turret usage, so that may control those 2 turrets or might be able to slave ant of the other 5 turrets on top. Add to that 2 auto missile turrets and the biggest torpedoes we've seen yet and this thing packs a punch.

Not quite as big a punch in the no-mans-sky balls as this one though:
https://gfycat.com/QuestionableOfficialCero

Hugely disappointing not to see any S42 at citizen con though, looks like we may see the 1 mission demo this year... and full release has definitely slipped into the 2017 category. Not that anyone was surprised.

No 2.6 demo? Seriously?

The 2.0 planet stuff, looked gorgeous but not enough on the ground looks at different biomes in my humble opinion.
Having said that, if 3.0 comes out this year, it'll be a tonne of fun to explore the planet/s available with both ships and land based vehicles.

One day they'll add mechs right? right? I can dream :P
0 x

User avatar
Otto-matic Reiffel
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 23:23

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Otto-matic Reiffel » 10 Oct 2016, 16:17

Why do they seem to insist on putting hangers in every capital class ship? Is there some sort of all gun capital ship yet - maybe a frigate/corvette with some spinal mount cannon as a bigger gun based analogue to the bombers?
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 10 Oct 2016, 16:54

Otto-matic Reiffel wrote:Why do they seem to insist on putting hangers in every capital class ship? Is there some sort of all gun capital ship yet - maybe a frigate/corvette with some spinal mount cannon as a bigger gun based analogue to the bombers?
Edit: went off on a bit of a tangent, big guns rather then bombers haha - my bad. Worth mentioning the Polaris lugs around some hefty torp's, surely that's a bomber that has a bit more utility though. Nothing seems to have a pure "bomber" role above the Retaliator but their (probably wrong) specs look to still pack a serious punch. There's definitely some gunboatery though.

I believe the landing bays/hangers are mostly to enable the ships to have some utility that would be impossible to have otherwise. ie some ships will be too large to land planetside. Pretty sure the capital ships for purchase that are/were available will come with an Argo (utility ship) by default - not sure if this is also true of the Polaris but wouldn't be surprised if it was.

The bay will allow capital ships to ferry crew, supplies, run search and rescue ops or even repair ships via an Argo (if equipped and if having the right modules/addons). It'd be convenient to have something that allows you to get out and about after a battle to do some makeshift repairs instead of immediately heading to a the space equivalent of dry docks or finding a nearby crucible willing to repair you for a fair rate. I highly doubt you're going to be landing this on your local orbital repair station but that's based on nothing but my own gut feeling so ...

Probably also good idea to have scout ships in fleets, as well as somewhere for secure messenger ships to sit tight while transferring data.

I guess it's just we tend to think of them as force multipliers before even considering the utility they can have. How can i bring more guns to this fight? There's a tonne of threads trying to work out how many ships they can squeeze into the damned thing just seconds after it is announced haha.

Ultimately though, it's still far too early to tell how effective any of the above is or what will be possible - yay theorycrafting.

Either way, I'd imagine all capitals will feature a shuttle bay of some description or another. If only because you cannot fly and have a docking collar active so to do anything via a docking collar will require full stops which would get annoying rather fast I would think.

There's a couple or more capitals that we know next to nothing about and probably wont hear or see them till s42... and then there's the other factions ships.

As for ships having large guns rather than just being carriers? The Idris-M has a huge rail gun and the Javelin destroyer looks like a bringer of a lot of hurt and has very little space for shuttles if i recall correctly, maybe less than the Idris-M. I know the Idris can hold 3 ships but I'd not consider that a real carrier focus, considering one or more of those ships could very well be utility ships. Even with 3 ships, their damage output will be dwarfed by the rail gun and just all round larger armament the Idris has. More of an escort role perhaps?

I know the Bengal is a carrier but holy mother of god has it still got a huge gun, one that's nearly bigger than an idris? Looks to be bigger than the Polaris and probably about the size of the Orion.

Last but certainly not least is the Retribution class battleship that makes the rest of the fleet look like micro machines.

Further, the guns on turrets and torpedos on the Polaris are actually really big and should be able to go toe to toe with a bunch of fighters I would imagine as well as dishing out some pain on smaller capitals should they survive long enough.

It will be interesting to see how fast anti-cap torpedos go, how good capitals AMS (Anti missile systems) are (if such things exist) and just how effective a torpedo hit will be on a capital. Huge void of actual information still sadly.

Here's how big the polaris is compared to the smaller ships:
Image
0 x

User avatar
Otto-matic Reiffel
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 23:23

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Otto-matic Reiffel » 10 Oct 2016, 17:47

Guess I'm just a fan of specialisation. Why all that room for a hanger and associated support when you could fill it with more power plants, make the ship much smaller or replace it with a gun that even super-capitals should be wary of. The smaller ships seem to have quite a lot of specialisation available while the bigger ones don't so much.

Realised what I'm describing is much more likely on a dedicated military ship, while pretty much everything available so far is mostly civilian. A fleet is going to have dedicated ships rather than a bunch of all-rounders.

Also no reason that a ferry shuttle can't dock to an external docking collar while the ship is not manoeuvring if rapid transfers are needed.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 10 Oct 2016, 18:10

Not manoeuvring? Not under thrust? Having to stop a large ship and another one, then line up and extend docking collars isn't something I'd call rapid. Maybe that's just me. ;)

You're right though, 95% of the current ships are not military variants or in any way built for the military.

Of the two capitals that I know much about, the Idris-M (originally) and the Polaris were ships setup for patrolling and running about by themselves and also serve as system militia flagships. A bit more jack of all trades required for that purpose.

Whereas something like the Javelin is definitely for fleet battles and as far as I'm aware only has room for one ship aboard it.
I mean just look at it, it doesn't look like it suffers too much for having a hanger aboard it, still looks like a risky ship to go near:

Image

I guess I've just watched too many movies where the captain gets on or off a ship via shuttles and I just kind of expect them to be there.

You could buy yourself a worm I guess... nobody will see you coming and will get that shock you're after.

Image
0 x

User avatar
Otto-matic Reiffel
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 23:23

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Otto-matic Reiffel » 10 Oct 2016, 19:37

Thrust would count as manoeuvring, yes. In space, for docking it doesn't really matter if the ships are going 0 compared to the sun or 30 km/sec, as long as their relative speed to each other is zero. I would expect for game purposes that the smaller capital ships could quite easily come to a full stop in under a minute, so not really onerous even if that's the only option.

Also, imagine that Javelin with EVEN MORE TORPEDOES! Whatever ships it has adds utility, it doesn't really add to the primary mission - launching torpedoes. Leave the ship launch capabilities to the carriers, that's what they are there for.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 10 Oct 2016, 19:58

Sorry, I meant for docking to take place at present that you cannot be moving at all relative to the universe. ie you have to both be at a dead stop, there's some technical reasons to this but also gameplay or maybe the gameplay ones were just due to the technical restrictions. Either way, it cannot be done, at least that's the last I heard on it.

I hear what you're saying but even in present day military it's quite common to have helipads and areas where small launches are hauled up onto the deck where the space could have otherwise been used for more deck guns or some other use.

Military spending really isn't as single minded as you'd think.

Have you ever watched the movie Pentagon Wars?
If not, check it out, seems to be on YouTube. At the very least the crux if the movie is.. With some classic scenes uploaded that sum up military spending quite well.

I think the Bradley, solely developed (at least initially) to carry troops into battle is a fantastic example...
Then there's the new F35, that seems aimed at attempting to do everything... ugh.

I hear you loud and clear... it's just the military doesn't :D
Last edited by boars on 10 Oct 2016, 20:47, edited 1 time in total.
0 x

Karmic Skink
Posts: 93
Joined: 04 Dec 2015, 15:30

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Karmic Skink » 10 Oct 2016, 20:19

Was there not previously an issue preventing remote management and control of turrets due to the engine's handling of picture in picture/multiple view points (not sure what its called)? Or has a work around been discovered?
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 10 Oct 2016, 20:45

You are correct, picture in picture was not an option in cryengine, it has since been put into star citizen, was in the gamescom demo. Haven't seen it talked about but it looks to be solved
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 11 Oct 2016, 00:11

The actual citizencon presentation - skip to 1h 25mins into the video as that's where the real meat and potatoes of the video is at (or go direct here: https://youtu.be/XuDj5v81Nd0?t=5121)

0 x

User avatar
Otto-matic Reiffel
Posts: 571
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 23:23

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Otto-matic Reiffel » 11 Oct 2016, 10:06

I think I'm too stuck in WWII with the whole total war thing. Multirole aircraft and ships getting outperformed by dedicated ships is a thing. For more recent times I can see the value in having a more generalised approach as the only enemy you are likely to be fighting is generally going to be hopelessly technologically outmatched.

Fair enough on the technical reasons for having to come to a full stop. Maybe in Star Citizen version 20 then :P
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 11 Oct 2016, 18:08

All flyable ships unlocked till the 17th of October... So if you want to fly a starfarer or any other ship you cannot justify buying or just plain isn't available... Now is the time to try it.
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 19 Nov 2016, 14:55

Anniversary livestream was today, some highlights below.

Paint schemes (missed this part of the stream, not sure if coming soon or not): https://gfycat.com/LameParallelIguana

First look at the Tevarin race (well not so much the race as the armour haha): https://twitter.com/RobertsSpaceInd/sta ... 68?lang=en

Ships of 2.6:


The big guns of the UEE (Idris/Javelin/Bengal):


Letter from the chairman:
http://us5.campaign-archive2.com/?u=32d ... 4d4082e4a1

They're now giving an actual internal shcedule on progress/planned releases (both a great idea and a bad idea - imagine the salt):
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

Prowler dropship reveal:


Intro to the Galactic Tour


Holiday sale info etc:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm ... he-Prowler


STAAAAAAAAAAAAR MARINE - finally some actual footage!
Last edited by boars on 19 Nov 2016, 19:48, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
LordPorksword
Posts: 97
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:31

Re: Star Citizen

Post by LordPorksword » 19 Nov 2016, 18:40

Big ships looking very good! :D
0 x

User avatar
boars
Posts: 393
Joined: 08 Nov 2015, 11:33
Location: Q. OO-su-to-ra-re-ah
Contact:

Re: Star Citizen

Post by boars » 19 Nov 2016, 19:49

It looks absolutely delicious, agreed.

Have added the Star Marine footage to my post now too - finally! Had to download that one in HD - the stream was having issues for me even at 480p :( bleh. Looks pretty fun already, do want... can just picture a capture the idris map now.

Hopefully they get close to their internal timings... and we get 2.6 on live PU before Christmas, one can hope.
0 x

User avatar
brimlad
Posts: 936
Joined: 05 Nov 2015, 17:56
Location: Canberra

Re: Star Citizen

Post by brimlad » 20 Nov 2016, 00:57

2.6 for Christmas would be a good thing even with a few bugs, been spending my flying time in DCS holding off SC until we get something special.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Ralph Wiggum
Posts: 631
Joined: 10 Nov 2015, 22:50

Re: Star Citizen

Post by Ralph Wiggum » 20 Nov 2016, 02:36

Cryengine always looks so shiny; I really hope their level designs and final product incorporate a more "used universe" look.
0 x
RIP Games.On.Net.

Post Reply