What I was expecting for damage states... [NOW w/Post from CR]

  • DracoStannis

    Posts: 10355

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    This is a combat sim!

    He says about the game originally titled "Space Trader".
    Yea true that.

    Numanoid SC is not a combat sim.
    ACES WIKI
    WE HAVE BACON!
  • Numanoid

    Posts: 96

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    This is a combat sim!

    He says about the game originally titled "Space Trader".
    Yea true that.

    Numanoid SC is not a combat sim.
    I'll just agree to disagree. I didn't meant to take the thread off topic.

  • DracoStannis

    Posts: 10355

    Posted:
    Edited: by DracoStannis
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    This is a combat sim!

    He says about the game originally titled "Space Trader".
    Yea true that.

    Numanoid SC is not a combat sim.
    I'll just agree to disagree. I didn't meant to take the thread off topic.

    You think it's a combat sim? that's only one part of it. but yea whatever.
    ACES WIKI
    WE HAVE BACON!
  • Siegen

    Posts: 1905

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    This is a combat sim!

    He says about the game originally titled "Space Trader".
    Right, because CR waxes nostalgic about all the trading runs in Star Wars.
    And his demo of the game, to get funding, was a big 'ol tanker rumbling though a quiet star system.
    And only a select few ships actually have/can carry weapons.

    Did you hear? Squadron 42 is a group of trade federation pilots...
    Lol well some people would be happier for it.
    Just saying.
    siegen.pngcYOp1e
  • croberts68

    Developer

    Posted:
    Posted:
    You just saw a PART of the damage system in the video. There are other layers like laser marks / burns, bullet / armor hits (achieved with decals + height maps) .

    Something that people may not have picked up is that while we have discrete states of damage for every part each state has multiple pieces (panels etc) that can break off. At the beginning of the state all those pieces are attached to the base damage geometry and then are broken off if there is a laser / projectile hit in their vicinity. So between the projectile hit decals, bits of the geometry breaking off near the impact point it will definitely look like the ship is responding to exactly where you are hitting.

    Transitions between states - which is flexible in number of states per part as it really depends on the size of the part and how much fidelity you need so the progression looks right (and available artist time) - is more absolute (i.e. when you go from damage 25% to damage 50% the same thing happens although the impulses of the detached geometry is random), so the wing will break in two or sheer off when you hit 50% damage (although if enough damage is done it will skip a state, which will have the effect of feeling / looking different).

    We're also accurately tracing all projectile hits so if a bullet breaks through the shield and armor it's path will be traced inside and if that projectile collides with an internal component it will inflict damage.

    Every ship system has a physical location and collision geometry even if it doesn't have render geometry (which is the case with an internal system). If that system is damages or destroyed it affects the ship on a fully systematic way. The obvious answer is the power plant - that gets damages (and doesn't blow up) its power output will decrease or stop. Every system has a power input and if its no longer receiving power will cease to function or in the case of reduced power either function at less power or not at all (depending on the device). Of course if you have some batteries / capacitors then the systems hooked up to the batteries will have some reserve power before running into trouble. A less obvious illustration is the ships main computer which provides CPU cycles for the ship's avionics (you can think of this computational power instead of energy power). If ship's computer is destroyed or damaged the targeting computer wont be able to resolve targets / function (as a targeting computer needs power, CPU cycles and a working radar). All ship systems either produce / supply some form of consumable (power, CPU cycles, heat, fuel) or use it. Heat is the negative consumable (you want to dispose of it not store it) - most weapons and some systems generate heat and if you don't efficiently deal with it (or your cooling vents get damaged) you'll risk damaging your ship & systems and at the very least increase your heat signature which makes you a much easier target for another ship's radar / targeting computer.

    This is all built in ships with a plug and play system so we just create item "ports" on a ship and plug weapons, radar, power plants, engines, thrusters, fuel tanks, batteries, CPU (more cores means more cycles), targeting system, navigation computer, jump drive, cooling vents / radiators etc in and they hook up the various "pipes" that carry power, CPU cycles, fuel or heat.

    Each of these items have their OWN damage states (for the ones that you can see)

    So you can see there's a level of fidelity in what we are doing that I haven't seen before in a game and the video today just showed a window into part of the things we are doing to graphically show damage...

    On Snowdrop - its a really pretty looking engine and I showed it to the team the moment it was demoed at E3 as I was very impressed. Having said that its not really do much more or different than CryEngine already does - the "procedural" damage that is demonstrated in the video has been something you have been able to do in CryEngine for years (bullet hit decals, breaking a plane of glass, puncturing tires and the car drops onto the rims). Its very well done (beautiful art & lighting) but I didn't see anything that we don't have the tech for in SC and that we are not planning to do (well I guess you cant shoot tires out on a ship but you could on a buggy!) Its been my experience that the very high end engines - CryEngine, Unreal 4, Frostbite all are pretty much equivalent on feature sets and capabilities - its more about how good you artists are and your programmers are in finding cool ways to show of the features of the engine.

    Last note (in my wall of text) -

    I've known about the BeamNG folks for a long time and talked to them as early as Dec 2012 about working on Star Citizen. I even have a prototype test they did with a Hornet flying in space using their system, crashing into asteroids! The problem with their approach (and soft body physics in general) is that it is really computationally / simulation heavy - its great for demo videos or something like a car game (there's a reason why Forza or Gran Turismo cars always look so good its because they're usually simulating less stuff than you would in a FPS like Crysis 3). Between the network bandwidth issues and client rendering / simulation issues (simulating softbody physics on 50 ships and having a frame rate that is above the single digits) a full softbody system isn't practical for SC just yet even on the high end PCs we're hoping everyone will have!

    That doesn't mean that I am against trying to do a streamlined version for damage modeling - I was hoping to get the BeamNG guys to do some R&D on a stripped down system that just focused on the damage modeling / deformation (not so much the full physical simulation of every hinge etc) for SC but at the time we talked they had other commitments (like finishing university) and wanting to work on their car game so we never ended up working out a deal - which doesn't mean that I wouldn't revisit this as they are super talented but right now it looks like they are doing well and living their dream of building their own game (and who am I to stop them?)

    This doesn't mean that we don't have procedural damage modeling via deformation in our R&D task list for the SC Graphics Engineering team (which is 4 programmers internally at the moment). We need this solution for capital ships as you want to see large hulls indent or buckle from hits / collisions and if we do something that we're happy with (and meets our performance criteria) we'll probably also apply back to the smaller ships adding just another level of detail!

    So I guess the TL;DNR version is be patient grasshoppers!
  • r_dee

    Posts: 913

    Posted:
    Edited: by r_dee
    Posted:
    Edited:
    -edited out, clarified by a chairman above-
  • Applecrow

    Moderator

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    You just saw a PART of the damage system in the video. There are other layers like laser marks / burns, bullet / armor hits (achieved with decals + height maps) .

    Something that people may not have picked up is that while we have discrete states of damage for every part each state has multiple pieces (panels etc) that can break off. At the beginning of the state all those pieces are attached to the base damage geometry and then are broken off if there is a laser / projectile hit in their vicinity. So between the projectile hit decals, bits of the geometry breaking off near the impact point it will definitely look like the ship is responding to exactly where you are hitting.

    Transitions between states - which is flexible in number of states per part as it really depends on the size of the part and how much fidelity you need so the progression looks right (and available artist time) - is more absolute (i.e. when you go from damage 25% to damage 50% the same thing happens although the impulses of the detached geometry is random), so the wing will break in two or sheer off when you hit 50% damage (although if enough damage is done it will skip a state, which will have the effect of feeling / looking different).

    We're also accurately tracing all projectile hits so if a bullet breaks through the shield and armor it's path will be traced inside and if that projectile collides with an internal component it will inflict damage.

    Every ship system has a physical location and collision geometry even if it doesn't have render geometry (which is the case with an internal system). If that system is damages or destroyed it affects the ship on a fully systematic way. The obvious answer is the power plant - that gets damages (and doesn't blow up) its power output will decrease or stop. Every system has a power input and if its no longer receiving power will cease to function or in the case of reduced power either function at less power or not at all (depending on the device). Of course if you have some batteries / capacitors then the systems hooked up to the batteries will have some reserve power before running into trouble. A less obvious illustration is the ships main computer which provides CPU cycles for the ship's avionics (you can think of this computational power instead of energy power). If ship's computer is destroyed or damaged the targeting computer wont be able to resolve targets / function (as a targeting computer needs power, CPU cycles and a working radar). All ship systems either produce / supply some form of consumable (power, CPU cycles, heat, fuel) or use it. Heat is the negative consumable (you want to dispose of it not store it) - most weapons and some systems generate heat and if you don't efficiently deal with it (or your cooling vents get damaged) you'll risk damaging your ship & systems and at the very least increase your heat signature which makes you a much easier target for another ship's radar / targeting computer.

    This is all built in ships with a plug and play system so we just create item "ports" on a ship and plug weapons, radar, power plants, engines, thrusters, fuel tanks, batteries, CPU (more cores means more cycles), targeting system, navigation computer, jump drive, cooling vents / radiators etc in and they hook up the various "pipes" that carry power, CPU cycles, fuel or heat.

    Each of these items have their OWN damage states (for the ones that you can see)

    So you can see there's a level of fidelity in what we are doing that I haven't seen before in a game and the video today just showed a window into part of the things we are doing to graphically show damage...

    On Snowdrop - its a really pretty looking engine and I showed it to the team the moment it was demoed at E3 as I was very impressed. Having said that its not really do much more or different than CryEngine already does - the "procedural" damage that is demonstrated in the video has been something you have been able to do in CryEngine for years (bullet hit decals, breaking a plane of glass, puncturing tires and the car drops onto the rims). Its very well done (beautiful art & lighting) but I didn't see anything that we don't have the tech for in SC and that we are not planning to do (well I guess you cant shoot tires out on a ship but you could on a buggy!) Its been my experience that the very high end engines - CryEngine, Unreal 4, Frostbite all are pretty much equivalent on feature sets and capabilities - its more about how good you artists are and your programmers are in finding cool ways to show of the features of the engine.

    Last note (in my wall of text) -

    I've known about the BeamNG folks for a long time and talked to them as early as Dec 2012 about working on Star Citizen. I even have a prototype test they did with a Hornet flying in space using their system, crashing into asteroids! The problem with their approach (and soft body physics in general) is that it is really computationally / simulation heavy - its great for demo videos or something like a car game (there's a reason why Forza or Gran Turismo cars always look so good its because they're usually simulating less stuff than you would in a FPS like Crysis 3). Between the network bandwidth issues and client rendering / simulation issues (simulating softbody physics on 50 ships and having a frame rate that is above the single digits) a full softbody system isn't practical for SC just yet even on the high end PCs we're hoping everyone will have!

    That doesn't mean that I am against trying to do a streamlined version for damage modeling - I was hoping to get the BeamNG guys to do some R&D on a stripped down system that just focused on the damage modeling / deformation (not so much the full physical simulation of every hinge etc) for SC but at the time we talked they had other commitments (like finishing university) and wanting to work on their car game so we never ended up working out a deal - which doesn't mean that I wouldn't revisit this as they are super talented but right now it looks like they are doing well and living their dream of building their own game (and who am I to stop them?)

    This doesn't mean that we don't have procedural damage modeling via deformation in our R&D task list for the SC Graphics Engineering team (which is 4 programmers internally at the moment). We need this solution for capital ships as you want to see large hulls indent or buckle from hits / collisions and if we do something that we're happy with (and meets our performance criteria) we'll probably also apply back to the smaller ships adding just another level of detail!

    So I guess the TL;DNR version is be patient grasshoppers!

    What he said.

    Purple replies are Moderator replies.

    I can Fly, I'mma pilot. And I'd just like to say, ever since I was kidnapped by aliens 10 years ago I've been dyin for some payback.
  • 5quelch

    Posts: 847

    Posted:
    Edited: by 5quelch
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    You just saw a PART of the damage system in the video. There are other layers like laser marks / burns, bullet / armor hits (achieved with decals + height maps) .

    Something that people may not have picked up is that while we have discrete states of damage for every part each state has multiple pieces (panels etc) that can break off. At the beginning of the state all those pieces are attached to the base damage geometry and then are broken off if there is a laser / projectile hit in their vicinity. So between the projectile hit decals, bits of the geometry breaking off near the impact point it will definitely look like the ship is responding to exactly where you are hitting.

    Transitions between states - which is flexible in number of states per part as it really depends on the size of the part and how much fidelity you need so the progression looks right (and available artist time) - is more absolute (i.e. when you go from damage 25% to damage 50% the same thing happens although the impulses of the detached geometry is random), so the wing will break in two or sheer off when you hit 50% damage (although if enough damage is done it will skip a state, which will have the effect of feeling / looking different).

    We're also accurately tracing all projectile hits so if a bullet breaks through the shield and armor it's path will be traced inside and if that projectile collides with an internal component it will inflict damage.

    Every ship system has a physical location and collision geometry even if it doesn't have render geometry (which is the case with an internal system). If that system is damages or destroyed it affects the ship on a fully systematic way. The obvious answer is the power plant - that gets damages (and doesn't blow up) its power output will decrease or stop. Every system has a power input and if its no longer receiving power will cease to function or in the case of reduced power either function at less power or not at all (depending on the device). Of course if you have some batteries / capacitors then the systems hooked up to the batteries will have some reserve power before running into trouble. A less obvious illustration is the ships main computer which provides CPU cycles for the ship's avionics (you can think of this computational power instead of energy power). If ship's computer is destroyed or damaged the targeting computer wont be able to resolve targets / function (as a targeting computer needs power, CPU cycles and a working radar). All ship systems either produce / supply some form of consumable (power, CPU cycles, heat, fuel) or use it. Heat is the negative consumable (you want to dispose of it not store it) - most weapons and some systems generate heat and if you don't efficiently deal with it (or your cooling vents get damaged) you'll risk damaging your ship & systems and at the very least increase your heat signature which makes you a much easier target for another ship's radar / targeting computer.

    This is all built in ships with a plug and play system so we just create item "ports" on a ship and plug weapons, radar, power plants, engines, thrusters, fuel tanks, batteries, CPU (more cores means more cycles), targeting system, navigation computer, jump drive, cooling vents / radiators etc in and they hook up the various "pipes" that carry power, CPU cycles, fuel or heat.

    Each of these items have their OWN damage states (for the ones that you can see)

    So you can see there's a level of fidelity in what we are doing that I haven't seen before in a game and the video today just showed a window into part of the things we are doing to graphically show damage...

    On Snowdrop - its a really pretty looking engine and I showed it to the team the moment it was demoed at E3 as I was very impressed. Having said that its not really do much more or different than CryEngine already does - the "procedural" damage that is demonstrated in the video has been something you have been able to do in CryEngine for years (bullet hit decals, breaking a plane of glass, puncturing tires and the car drops onto the rims). Its very well done (beautiful art & lighting) but I didn't see anything that we don't have the tech for in SC and that we are not planning to do (well I guess you cant shoot tires out on a ship but you could on a buggy!) Its been my experience that the very high end engines - CryEngine, Unreal 4, Frostbite all are pretty much equivalent on feature sets and capabilities - its more about how good you artists are and your programmers are in finding cool ways to show of the features of the engine.

    Last note (in my wall of text) -

    I've known about the BeamNG folks for a long time and talked to them as early as Dec 2012 about working on Star Citizen. I even have a prototype test they did with a Hornet flying in space using their system, crashing into asteroids! The problem with their approach (and soft body physics in general) is that it is really computationally / simulation heavy - its great for demo videos or something like a car game (there's a reason why Forza or Gran Turismo cars always look so good its because they're usually simulating less stuff than you would in a FPS like Crysis 3). Between the network bandwidth issues and client rendering / simulation issues (simulating softbody physics on 50 ships and having a frame rate that is above the single digits) a full softbody system isn't practical for SC just yet even on the high end PCs we're hoping everyone will have!

    That doesn't mean that I am against trying to do a streamlined version for damage modeling - I was hoping to get the BeamNG guys to do some R&D on a stripped down system that just focused on the damage modeling / deformation (not so much the full physical simulation of every hinge etc) for SC but at the time we talked they had other commitments (like finishing university) and wanting to work on their car game so we never ended up working out a deal - which doesn't mean that I wouldn't revisit this as they are super talented but right now it looks like they are doing well and living their dream of building their own game (and who am I to stop them?)

    This doesn't mean that we don't have procedural damage modeling via deformation in our R&D task list for the SC Graphics Engineering team (which is 4 programmers internally at the moment). We need this solution for capital ships as you want to see large hulls indent or buckle from hits / collisions and if we do something that we're happy with (and meets our performance criteria) we'll probably also apply back to the smaller ships adding just another level of detail!

    So I guess the TL;DNR version is be patient grasshoppers!

    Thank you so much for taking the time to post here, and thank you again for revealing some of the background too.

    In fact you beat me to a post I was making that acknowledged the fact that you may have already considered BeamNG in R&D. To learn this is true is fantastic news, and the possibility that perhaps a stripped down hybrid system may be slated for the future is good news indeed. Such a system that glues the ship components together seems to me to be the ultimate and dare I say, Next Gen approach.that perhaps we have come to expect.
  • SanguinemUK

    Posts: 431

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    The Division is a console game.

    A console game is utilising tech far superior than this supposed "benchmark" for you PC elitists.

    Let that sink in. This damage states report was underwhelming to say the least.

    Just look at this. Not possible 2 years ago? BeamNG is more than 2 years old and is far more advanced. This has infinite possibilities of damage states because it's calculated by the physics engine in real time.

    Not "x damage leads to level 1 damage states, 2x damage, level 2, etc" with the same visual effect each time. Put a trillion polygons in your game all you want, but if, in motion, it looks crap, then goodbye consistency. The visual aspect doesn't sell as a whole.

    0.jpg

    0.jpg
    AMD 8150 8core 3.5GHz 64bit
    12GB Corsair Vengeance RAM DDR3
    7970 3GB Ghz Edition Graphics Card
    250GB SSD
    2 1TB HDD
  • FerrickLuten

    Posts: 38

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I was happy, until i saw your video. That was amazing.
    Tantum stulta enim stabitis adversus nos
  • napoleonic

    Posts: 776

    Posted:
    Posted:
    didn't expect that wall of text from chris roberts, this is amazing!
  • SanguinemUK

    Posts: 431

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.
    AMD 8150 8core 3.5GHz 64bit
    12GB Corsair Vengeance RAM DDR3
    7970 3GB Ghz Edition Graphics Card
    250GB SSD
    2 1TB HDD
  • MudkickerAlpha

    Posts: 1143

    Posted:
    Posted:
    There's a lot of really positive attitudes here and some people who will never be happy about any state of SC or who just plain know better than CIG. So for you folks I hope CR makes a game so intense that you'll need a minimum SLi 780 rig to get 30fps.

    I think CIG is busting ass to make this DFM happen for us but as always there's people who just want and expect more. Feeling embarrassed to be part of this community right now.

    Flame all you want I am not affected in any way, shape or forum.
  • r_dee

    Posts: 913

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
  • SanguinemUK

    Posts: 431

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    That...didnt even make sense. Look, if you arent happy, move on. As far as the VAST majority of us are concerned, CR and CIG are doing great and Damage States look awesome. And remember, this is a game built for the PC and members of the PC master race...not console jockeys.

    In short, there was and is no need for you to get so offensive.
    AMD 8150 8core 3.5GHz 64bit
    12GB Corsair Vengeance RAM DDR3
    7970 3GB Ghz Edition Graphics Card
    250GB SSD
    2 1TB HDD
  • MudkickerAlpha

    Posts: 1143

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    You can always go back to your console and play 6v6.
  • SanguinemUK

    Posts: 431

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    You can always go back to your console and play 6v6.
    THIS!!

    You can talk all you want about your amazing engine when only a handful of people can play at the same time at just 30FPS. SC will have hundreds, maybe thousands all playing and fighting at the same time. Your argument is there for invalid Dee.
    AMD 8150 8core 3.5GHz 64bit
    12GB Corsair Vengeance RAM DDR3
    7970 3GB Ghz Edition Graphics Card
    250GB SSD
    2 1TB HDD
  • Chompster

    Posts: 2231

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    The Division is a console game

    Wrong.

    Its coming to PC as well.

    |Cutlass|M50|Freelancer MIS|350R|Mustang Beta|
    5bya.png
  • Puls0nic

    Posts: 2927

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Keep in mind the damage states isn't JUST for fighting. It's for everything else as well. If you clip your wing on an asteroid, you will damage it and the tip will come off. If you are salvaging a derelict it will be in one of the damaged states. It's all to make the game more Wow! :) And by wow I mean the feeling, not the game. -.-
  • CadeStone

    Posts: 53

    Posted:
    Edited: by CadeStone
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I can confirm that CR's clarification has provided sufficient lighter fluid for my personal BBQ to occur, and for that I say thank you! All that us fussy-britches pc-elitists needed was affirmation, from the man, that what we saw of damage states was just the beginning of his plans...and boy, he did not disappoint!
  • r_dee

    Posts: 913

    Posted:
    Edited: by r_dee
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    You can always go back to your console and play 6v6.
    THIS!!

    You can talk all you want about your amazing engine when only a handful of people can play at the same time at just 30FPS. SC will have hundreds, maybe thousands all playing and fighting at the same time. Your argument is there for invalid Dee.
    This same elitist perspective assuming I own a console, when I don't. Look who can't keep a neutral perspective. Well done on letting the master race hubris make judgements for you.


    [hide]

    [hide]

    The Division is a console game

    Wrong.

    Its coming to PC as well.

    The point went over you. I never implied console exclusivity. Obviously the PC is superior, but the point is that something as supposedly inferior as the consoles are capable of handling that tech.


    -

    Edit: Not that I'm too concerned about this any longer, now that allegedly and per CR's claim that they're R&Ding into this and that the heavy simulation that entails aforementioned technology is not yet implementable into SC's bandwidth demands.
  • Nocturnal7x

    Posts: 1092

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Im impressed we have more than an HP bar and maybe some smoke.
    photo phendranaSIG_zps228dd641.png
  • Kallist

    Posts: 526

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I dont want them to make things too over the top, like they did in Battlefield 4. We can see how well that worked out for their network. Would hate to have it happen here too.
    Green text: Its just a color preference.
  • SanguinemUK

    Posts: 431

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    You can always go back to your console and play 6v6.
    THIS!!

    You can talk all you want about your amazing engine when only a handful of people can play at the same time at just 30FPS. SC will have hundreds, maybe thousands all playing and fighting at the same time. Your argument is there for invalid Dee.
    This same elitist perspective assuming I own a console, when I don't. Look who can't keep a neutral perspective. Well done on letting the master race hubris make judgements for you.


    [hide]

    [hide]

    The Division is a console game

    Wrong.

    Its coming to PC as well.

    The point went over you. I never implied console exclusivity. Obviously the PC is superior, but the point is that something as supposedly inferior as the consoles are capable of handling that tech.
    So, you are just here flame baiting basically. Well, thanks for that admission.
    AMD 8150 8core 3.5GHz 64bit
    12GB Corsair Vengeance RAM DDR3
    7970 3GB Ghz Edition Graphics Card
    250GB SSD
    2 1TB HDD
  • womby

    Posts: 4612

    Posted:
    Posted:
    People are overlooking the fundamental difference between single player and multi player. In multi player, whatever you do to a model has to be communicated to every other player's machine in the same instance. If you have a fixed set of damage states, that can be communicated with a single short message. If you have real time model deformation then you have increased network traffic astronomically.
    bvcsorF.pngaBIG3k3.png


  • Musi

    Posts: 414

    Posted:
    Edited: by Musi
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Edit: ugh nevermind, i missread

    Awesome of Chris to take time to respond. Thanks for clearing things up.
  • r_dee

    Posts: 913

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    [hide]

    Pretty much everyone was happy with damage states and the TLDR wall of text from CR shows how much more in depth it is and what we are not seeing. Its only a few that are not happy because they have unrealistically high expectations because of cruddy console technologies.

    It's cruddy yet too taxing for the planned network bandwidth at this time? - oops, I forgot about the master race perspective.
    You can always go back to your console and play 6v6.
    THIS!!

    You can talk all you want about your amazing engine when only a handful of people can play at the same time at just 30FPS. SC will have hundreds, maybe thousands all playing and fighting at the same time. Your argument is there for invalid Dee.
    This same elitist perspective assuming I own a console, when I don't. Look who can't keep a neutral perspective. Well done on letting the master race hubris make judgements for you.


    [hide]

    [hide]

    The Division is a console game

    Wrong.

    Its coming to PC as well.

    The point went over you. I never implied console exclusivity. Obviously the PC is superior, but the point is that something as supposedly inferior as the consoles are capable of handling that tech.
    So, you are just here flame baiting basically. Well, thanks for that admission.
    No, I was ignorant on the subject until CR's post. You took it upon yourself to flame on what isn't bait. That's your temperamental issue. Don't worry about it. I'm not concerned if you're mad.
  • Goredema

    Posts: 991

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    So I guess the TL;DNR version is be patient grasshoppers!

    Thanks for the explanation. I think some of us have exactly the opposite concern to the people in this thread: it seems like you're going to end up sinking a LOT of man-hours into each ship, for a feature that is really cool, but may end up eating up a gigantic amount of money and time to implement.

    I know most fans here on the forums will disagree with me, but at some point you guys may need to stop adding stuff and polishing stuff and reworking stuff, and move toward shipping an actual, purchasable game. Right now the feature set for Star Citizen is massive, and the Wingman's Hangar video make it look like bullet point #1, "Hornets dog fighting in space", is already consuming a vast number of man-hours. I know the dog fighting module is the core of the game, and the bit you care about the most, but has anyone at CIG run some estimates on how long this is all going to take? [Man-hours spent to get the Hornet launch-ready] x [50 Ships] = ???

    I love how awesomely detailed the Star Citizen universe has become, but at some point you may need to say "no" when your inner Chris Roberts tells you to add more features or go back and re-work something that isn't perfect. At some point you may need to say "it's only twice as awesome as everything else on the market, but that will have to do for now" and release the game.

    I know there's only a 0.01% chance you'll read this, and an even lesser chance that you'll take it to heart. There's too many voices telling you "yes", too many fans encouraging you to add more, polish more, make it bigger and more shiny. But on the off chance you actually see this, allow me to be the guy reminding you that a film's Producer is someone people love to hate, but he/she is also the person that says "quit faffing about and finish the goddamn movie by [DATE], or else." And a lot of times, that time constraint and that pressure produces a leaner, better film.

    In closing, we all love your vision and your commitment to making the Best Damn Space Game Ever, but please make sure you actually have the time and money to do all this fiddly stuff and still have a chance of releasing the game in the next 2-4 years.
    e4a7Vld.png

  • Moonrider

    Posts: 2064

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Everyone has their own expectations.

    Yeah and it is tragic funny to see both threads about the damage system: "this is not enough" and "this is too much"... taking it as it is, and be happy about it makes life so much more enjoyable.

    29xauzb.png
    Dreams. Dreams happen now!
    0.jpg


  • Reach

    Posts: 2104

    Posted:
    Edited: by Reach
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Between the Hornet damage states that we saw, the decals and the fact that they'll be 50 of them flying around potentially at high speed, full soft body physics would have been amazing but pointless and really add very little to the game.

    Personally, I'm far more interested to see how damage states are on capital ships as damage states on capital ships have always disappointed more, in the Wing Commanders and the Star Wars games. I know Star Citizen will be a massive step up from them but I wonder how far I.e. something like the Elite Dangerous damage model looks amazing and truly impressed me, a torpedo blasting a massive gaping hole in the side of a Bengal and then seeing all of the sparks and smoke and debris where the torpedo hit and then being able to enter the hole for boarding actions. However, this might not be possible in Star Citizen purely down to how much more detail Star a Citizen ships have over Elite Dangerous, so trade offs need to be made.

    I also believe that if Chris was to make a game that didn't get someone on here moaning about how disappointed they were blah, blah, blah, it'll be the most expensive, convoluted game ever made and take 20 years to make. There are some incredibly smart people on the forums but most of us have no idea on the true capabilities and limitations of what a) PC hardware is capable of when 50 people all need to play together fluidly, b) the capability of the Cryengine, and c) exactly what CIG have planned.
    Simon "SkyKiller" Reach

    F7C-M Super Hornet
    Aegis Retaliator - The Ellie Day
    Rogue Squadron | WWW.SC-ROGUES.COM
Sign In or Register to comment.