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.
Ship rentals will slip to 3.4 along with bind culling.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
Reoccurring bug. you'll have to claim it to try to reset it. Can take two tries to do it.
The downside of this approach is that it is possible to achieve any desired performance for a ship,
regardless how realistic. If a designer wants to tune an Idris to go from zero to 1 km/s in half a
second, this system will generate thruster capacities that will allow the ship to achieve this
performance, regardless of whether it is reasonable. If care is not taken, a ship can end up with, for
example, a small-diameter mav generating several million newtons of force, while a larger-diameter
main generates only a fraction of that amount. While this would be strictly realistic within the
simulation, it would not be reasonable. Based on in-fiction tech limits, thrusters should maintain a
general relationship between size and capacity. This limitation is not enforced by the simulation. It
is entirely up to the designer to balance desired performance goals against realistic physical
behaviors for each ship.
Anyone can give me a heads up on the Aegis Avenger rework? I remember getting trapped in the middle of the ship :_D
It's the same, but bigger :p
You can stand up inside the ship now, even going from the back to the cockpit.
Sad face. :(I saw that Squadron 42 got pushed out of 2018 by Roberts on a livestream today.
Top man.
Is there a chance we could see this on next gen?
It would seem a wasted opportunity not to have a console version.
That was really cool though. Mining actually requires you to cooperate on some very valuable rocks that you cannot crack alone.
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.
10 Mins + in loading screens just trying to get into the game. What a crock of shit.
That's weird. It only takes me little more than a minute to load with my old computer.10 Mins + in loading screens just trying to get into the game. What a crock of shit.
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.
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 :).