-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Star Citizen Alpha 3.3.0 | Thread Title Delayed Until 3.3.5
- Thread starter Raticus79
- Start date
- Status
Mining is pretty fun, even if it doesn't pay very well at the moment.
It's a decent first implementation.
There's also some nice QoL additions in the new orbital QT mechanics and being able to buy stuff from kiosks.
I'm probably still missing a lot, but those stand out.
They've only just started publicly testing the new party mechanics and QT linking, so I expect some changes for the better to those during PTU.
Performance is sadly still not where anybody would want it. I just hope we don't see stuff slipping from the 3.3 schedule and that those changes actually pan out.
For now, some nice new additions, cool new ships, some new mechanics.
Nothing earthshaking, but good to have.
It's a decent first implementation.
There's also some nice QoL additions in the new orbital QT mechanics and being able to buy stuff from kiosks.
I'm probably still missing a lot, but those stand out.
They've only just started publicly testing the new party mechanics and QT linking, so I expect some changes for the better to those during PTU.
Performance is sadly still not where anybody would want it. I just hope we don't see stuff slipping from the 3.3 schedule and that those changes actually pan out.
For now, some nice new additions, cool new ships, some new mechanics.
Nothing earthshaking, but good to have.
Of course we will see stuff slipping from the 3.3 schedule, thats what happened with 3.1 and it also happened with the best parts of 3.2
At least we will be able to rent ships in the PU with 3.3
So I finally logged back into my account after not flying my Freelancer since...what...2.4.
Can someone explain why my Freelancer doesn't have a rear door and it doesn't have engines?
Minute 4:50 to minute 5:10
Can someone explain why my Freelancer doesn't have a rear door and it doesn't have engines?
Minute 4:50 to minute 5:10
Last edited:
Reoccurring bug. you'll have to claim it to try to reset it. Can take two tries to do it.
PTU is the testing server, the actual live release will probably be end of this week. There should be a button to copy your account to the ptu in your account details on the website and instructions and a password should be mailed to you.
If you have any interest in flight and IFCS, you might want to give this spectrum post by J. Pritchett a look. It's joy to see so much detail and information condensed in one document.
This amazing control/physics simulation has been terribly underused so far, in no small part due to lack of completeness of the game systems surrounding them (Item 2.0 components and concepts mainly). I'm not entirely inclined to blame the designers considering what the priorities should be. I still disagree with the instantaneous force given to the translational thrusters but then there are also people who justifiably love the macross-like agility it gives. It's just that to me, 10-20 G's seems excessive considering the sharpness of motion it gives from a standstill without any good visual feedback to justify this extreme motion. Still it is far more complex than just saying "X G's only!", and I need to properly read this through.
It feels damn good to see the IFCS exposed in all its brilliance.
edit : halfway through the document. That Q&A thread has seriously amazing replies by JP. I'll try to compile something later.
This amazing control/physics simulation has been terribly underused so far, in no small part due to lack of completeness of the game systems surrounding them (Item 2.0 components and concepts mainly). I'm not entirely inclined to blame the designers considering what the priorities should be. I still disagree with the instantaneous force given to the translational thrusters but then there are also people who justifiably love the macross-like agility it gives. It's just that to me, 10-20 G's seems excessive considering the sharpness of motion it gives from a standstill without any good visual feedback to justify this extreme motion. Still it is far more complex than just saying "X G's only!", and I need to properly read this through.
It feels damn good to see the IFCS exposed in all its brilliance.
edit : halfway through the document. That Q&A thread has seriously amazing replies by JP. I'll try to compile something later.
Last edited:
Looks like he added in a video by Noobifier summarizing the whole thing for those more visually inclined:
Really incredible job by J. Pritchett on all the responses in the post, looks like he'll have his hands full for a while looking into all those requests.
Also, the IFCS system looks incredible, I hope more devs take some time out to look to the community for input on these very important systems.
Really incredible job by J. Pritchett on all the responses in the post, looks like he'll have his hands full for a while looking into all those requests.
Also, the IFCS system looks incredible, I hope more devs take some time out to look to the community for input on these very important systems.
From that PDF
This like the very thing I've been talking about for years. Which is exactly what we have with the ships and the flight dynamics in general. It's a symptom of not having a unified framework for ship making and design, if they designed this where they had to outline "x" size thrusters make "y" thrust on ships we could see a much better flight experience where different ships exhibit different, tangible tendencies rather that every ship being the same but operating on a speed slider. It's something I frankly expect them to have down by this end instead of constantly giving us a "homer" in terms of mixing in game performance vs design expectations.
This like the very thing I've been talking about for years. Which is exactly what we have with the ships and the flight dynamics in general. It's a symptom of not having a unified framework for ship making and design, if they designed this where they had to outline "x" size thrusters make "y" thrust on ships we could see a much better flight experience where different ships exhibit different, tangible tendencies rather that every ship being the same but operating on a speed slider. It's something I frankly expect them to have down by this end instead of constantly giving us a "homer" in terms of mixing in game performance vs design expectations.
How is having fixed thruster values more conductive to design flexibility and giving ships character than the system he outlined?
To me he basically says that with sufficient amount of force even the death star can dogfight. Why is this controversial? Even in the case of your idea of having thruster values set in stone, if said values are whimsical then the situation is the same.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The IFCS tools are clearly not as simple as a speed slider.
To me he basically says that with sufficient amount of force even the death star can dogfight. Why is this controversial? Even in the case of your idea of having thruster values set in stone, if said values are whimsical then the situation is the same.
I'm not sure what you are saying. The IFCS tools are clearly not as simple as a speed slider.
The new avenger trailer features some really sweet fog at city scale. I'm a fan :).
Blade Runner called.
Dynamically lit by the city environment itself, this fog looks like the CEV variety dramatically scaled up.
The shadows on this one took my breath away. This is pure GITS/Cyberpunk stuff.
Knowing all the tech they are working on comes together in this sort of result, knowing what the potential is is why this project is so exciting.
Good stuff today :).
Blade Runner called.
Dynamically lit by the city environment itself, this fog looks like the CEV variety dramatically scaled up.
The shadows on this one took my breath away. This is pure GITS/Cyberpunk stuff.
Knowing all the tech they are working on comes together in this sort of result, knowing what the potential is is why this project is so exciting.
Good stuff today :).
It's the same, but bigger :p
You can stand up inside the ship now, even going from the back to the cockpit.
Expected the delay, still need to nail down the core flight dynamics before shipping missions and AI.
Well, that sucks. John Pritchett is leaving because CIG needed to bring the IFCS in-house and JP has understandably no will to relocate. This makes sense as CIG focuses more and more on the design of the game and wants to move faster on it. Since he announced the formation of an IFCS team, it's also not a huge surprise. While his departure hurts, he openly said he was confident in the new team's ability to carry on and I have to admit this is a good thing for the IFCS. I hope this will facilitate communication and lead to a more consistent design and use of this amazing collection of systems. Still, his outstanding talent aside he's the one who knew these complex system inside out and communicated very well with the backers about them. I'll miss him.
The new guys have a lot to live up to now. Don't fuck it up :).
The new guys have a lot to live up to now. Don't fuck it up :).
3.2 is LIVE on the PU.
All patch notes here:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//16638-Star-Citizen-Alpha-320
All patch notes here:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link//16638-Star-Citizen-Alpha-320
Is there a chance we could see this on next gen?
It would seem a wasted opportunity not to have a console version.
It would seem a wasted opportunity not to have a console version.
Finally have a computer to try this out. Can't believe I bought this almost to the date: July 6, 2013. Downloading 3.2 now I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing.
Depending on their CPU, perhaps.
Don't take it the wrong way, but I hope it never happens. I think it would be a self-destructive move. We've seen what happens to the breadth of design of games when fixed hardware gets thrown at them, especially when pushing the limits so much. There's also the issue that even though the game is playable with a controller, it assumes the presence of a keyboard for the mountain of shortcuts you need.
That was really cool though. Mining actually requires you to cooperate on some very valuable rocks that you cannot crack alone.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Oh nice, that came out of nowhere. Grabbed a screenshot from the video:
I dont see why porting to next gen would alter the breadth at all.It would just be a port which should be able to be done quite easily on the rumoured specs.
Keyboard support seems to be propping up on Xbox and would be easy to implement.
Thankfully game devs and pubs are financially motivated and theres are lot of money to be made on this game in the console market.
That's weird. It only takes me little more than a minute to load with my old computer.
You are arguing things I disagree with :
- That ports are easy (and cheap), with a game whose entire premise is to be demanding and make PCs sing. I don't mean to presume but what you perhaps have in mind is games being vaguely graphically scaled up as they are ported on PCs. The reverse is not so easy with AI, physics, system simulation and everything making up the vast scope of a game that has been built for the ground up for PC. Consoles are goddamn hard.
- That the new consoles coming around 2020 will have a hardware that is equally capable as PCs, which based on the concept of a low price point is a tall assumption. The 8th gen's CPUs were chronically underpowered at release for example.
- More importantly, that tying these games to a fixed hardware does not influence their game design and ambition. This has been proven false more times than I can count and PC gamers have been burned badly by the 7th gen. See : Crysis 2, Witcher 2, any kind of game that saw a "streamlined" multiplatform sequel. If you follow the development of SC, you can see that hardware drives everything. Limits are very clearly defined by it in what they can and cannot attempt to do.
Yes, money is a motivator. However contrary to what you can read on comment sections, you are mistaken if you think this project is driven by people who are looking to make a buck at the expense of their vision. If the vision doesn't suffer, then why not. If more people can experience this game, it's really cool. More money is good. I just disagree with your premise that consoles wouldn't be harmful to said vision.
That's my opinion anyway, you will find other backers who see no problem with porting S42 to consoles for example. I disagree but there's not a unified opinion on the subject :).
The game can run well on a modern i5 and a 1070, modern game consoles are basically PCs and the nextgen ones will be able to fit 8 zen cores at 7nm which will rival i7s now accordingto digital foundry. I dont know what would really be troublesome in porting SC to next gen consoles.
Keep in mind this should be done when its in a good state on PC.
Its different to crysis 2, witcher 2.
What Im saying is more similar to if crysis 2 and witcher 2 were made for PC then ported to X1/PS4.
- Status