• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Citizen Pre-Alpha: 'Arena Commander' Dogfighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Burny

Member
KKRT00 said:
https://youtu.be/ezrghcBRcSk?t=842

Chris basically confirmed that they have almost working seemless procedural planetary landing :O
Click to expand...

I was wondering what the heck "procedural landings" are supposed to be. :p Thanks for posting the deep link, although it would've been useful to start at the question.

In the end it boils down to a lot of "it's gonna be cool" and the claim that "they are going to be more free-form". So, limited control on preset approach corridors? That wouldn't be "procedural" per se and I think procedural wasn't mentioned. Or maybe they're going to generate different approach corridors?

Well... If that tuns out to be true, at least we won't have to watch the same landing sequence time and time again and maybe get some interactivity instead.
 
D

Dictator93

Member
KKRT00 said:
https://youtu.be/ezrghcBRcSk?t=842

Chris basically confirmed that they have almost working seemless procedural planetary landing :O
Click to expand...

Burny said:
I was wondering what the heck "procedural landings" are supposed to be. :p Thanks for posting the deep link, although it would've been useful to start at the question.

In the end it boils down to a lot of "it's gonna be cool" and the claim that "they are going to be more free-form". So, limited control on preset approach corridors? That wouldn't "procedural" per se and I think procedural wasn't mentioned. Or maybe they're going to generate different approach corridors?

Well... If that runs out to be true, at least we won't have to watch the same landing sequence time and time again and maybe get some interactivity instead.
Click to expand...
He also kinda side-ways confirms alpha 2.0 on the PTU for after the anniversary live stream. Friday?
 
D

Danthrax

Batteries the CRISIS!
Burny said:
I was wondering what the heck "procedural landings" are supposed to be. :p Thanks for posting the deep link, although it would've been useful to start at the question.

In the end it boils down to a lot of "it's gonna be cool" and the claim that "they are going to be more free-form". So, limited control on preset approach corridors? That wouldn't be "procedural" per se and I think procedural wasn't mentioned. Or maybe they're going to generate different approach corridors?

Well... If that tuns out to be true, at least we won't have to watch the same landing sequence time and time again and maybe get some interactivity instead.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagine it means that we'll get different uncontrollable approach vectors rather than one precanned approach vector. It'll be more realistic and more interesting to watch each time, which I'll appreciate.
 
L

lacinius

Member
Dictator93 said:
So what do you guys think they will show off during the live stream? Procedural gen? Voxel asteroids? Multi-crew damage? FPS?

CR's Corvette collection?
Click to expand...


In the opening paragraph of the comm-link schedule this was mentioned:

You'll have to tune into the livestream to find out which ships will be sold when, but I'll go ahead and give you a hint:
The Anvil Crucible will be on sale the entire duration for $350. Look for the requisite Q&A posts next week.

EDIT: A post with all relevant sales info will come out DURING the livestream.
Click to expand...
 
K

KKRT00

Member
Pomerlaw said:
I don't get that at all from what he said. More freedom is very different from seamless PL.
Click to expand...

On one of the previous 104C or one of monthly reports he actually mentioned that they are further then anyone expected when they started the group and the tech looks very real and promising.
So here he was talking exactly about that in regards to planetary landing.

I mean, i dont have time to find all the 'clues', but You have to trust me thats actually what he is talking about :)
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Danthrax said:
Yeah, I imagine it means that we'll get different uncontrollable approach vectors rather than one precanned approach vector. It'll be more realistic and more interesting to watch each time, which I'll appreciate.
Click to expand...

Differing approach vectors as opposed to full blown Elite style landings actually makes a lot of sense for major planets with high populations. Air congestion would be quite high when so many people own space ships. Then there's the security aspect. You wouldn't be able to just enter from anywhere you want and fly to your location. You'd have to communicate your intent beforehand and flight controllers would dictate how you'd approach.
 
B

Burny

Member
Pomerlaw said:
I don't get that at all from what he said. More freedom is very different from seamless PL.
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is why I was wondering...

I feel it's a lot of wishy-washy non-committal waffling, imho. The term procedural wasn't even mentioned a single time. I don't like being told "it's gonna be cool". I prefer to be told what it's going to be bullet-point-style and will then determine for myself if I consider it cool. Alternatively, I can also well live with "we haven't figured it out, yet".

The only two tangible claims concerning planetary landings I took away from that video: They are aiming at making it more "free-form". That sounds to me like they are aiming to give the player some form of control, which I would consider preferable over the on rails planet approach sequences we've seen but is so vague, that it could mean all kinds of things and possibly even nothing, if they determine they haven't got the time down the line. It certainly doesn't imply anything being procedurally generated, but doesn't mean it won't be either.

The second point would be that we'll be seeing something at the end of this year or at the beginning of next year. By now, I don't expect anything, so I'd be pleasantly surprised if we indeed did see an update then.

KKRT00 said:
On one of the previous 104C or one of monthly reports he actually mentioned that they are further then anyone expected when they started the group and the tech looks very real and promising.
So here he was talking exactly about that in regards to planetary landing.

I mean, i dont have time to find all the 'clues', but You have to trust me thats actually what he is talking about :)
Click to expand...
As for promising, cool looking or whatever, see above.

No offense, but why should we trust you? I prefer to have traceable sources for claims concerning features. If there is no such source, something may or may not be in the works/exist, so any claim along the lines of "It's gonna be so, trust me", tells me nothing more than you belive it is so and want me to believe to.

As for traceable sources, Star Citizen is a case of "TL;DW" - too long, didn't watch, for me. >.< Which means I'm thankful for any deep links to any dev statement concerning specific features!
 
K

KKRT00

Member
If they give us a control on landing sequence i would see it this way.

You are in the space and have a marker on the planet where is the city. Then You would manually fly into the planet atmosphere, but on some altitude the auto-pilot will take over and approach the city with correct position and speed.

---
Burny said:
No offense, but why should we trust you? I prefer to have traceable sources for claims concerning features. If there is no such source, something may or may not be in the works/exist, so any claim along the lines of "It's gonna be so, trust me", tells me nothing more than you belive it is so.

As for traceable sources, Star Citizen is a case of "TL;DW" - too long, didn't watch, for me. >.< Which means I'm thankful for any deep links to any dev statement concerning specific features!
Click to expand...
You can search for it, its there. I just dont have time to do it. I know that i read/heard about it in one of the previous materials, which are so many that its hard to track it.
Probably the fastest way to find it would be by tracking reddit about this 104C.
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Burny said:
The only two tangible claims concerning planetary landings I took away from that video: They are aiming at making it more "free-form". That sounds to me like they are aiming to give the player some form of control, which I would consider preferable over the on rails planet approach sequences we've seen but is so vague...
Click to expand...

I'm personally imagining the best case situation being on rails, but on rails like ala Star Fox / Panzer Dragoon Orta. The vector itself is set, but limited freedom is allowed within the path. Possibly allowing branching at key points within the sequence. Then you could randomize AI (cross)traffic and have the pilot capable of overriding an autopilot to dictate their own movements along the vector - dodging buildings and other traffic as they see fit.

That would cut down on asset creation and planning tremendously compared to a true free form descent, but would give the player the illusion of control.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
One fast thing i found:

During September, we started working on planetary rendering and procedural generation – combined with other key systems being worked on previously (Large World, camera relative rendering, Zone system etc.) all these systems will combine together to reach our long term goal of seamlessly transitioning from space to a planet FPS ground level.

We researched and implemented a prototype for (earth like) planet atmosphere rendering, and the results are very promising.
Click to expand...
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14995-Monthly-Studio-Report
 
B

Burny

Member
KKRT00 said:
One fast thing i found:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/14995-Monthly-Studio-Report
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Assuming the planet features surrounding the planetary hubs on which we land were to be procedurally generated, that still doesn't make "procedural landings". ;-) Combined with the "free-form" statement it could just mean that the entry into the atmosphere and the approach to the hubs would be completely manually controlled, while the actual landing sequence on near ground level would be the on-rails affair we've seen, possibly generated based on the direction from which you approached. Or it could mean something completely different.

So you see... Please don't do...

KKRT00 said:
You can search for it, its there. I just dont have time to do it. I know that i read/heard about it in one of the previous materials, which are so many that its hard to track it.
Probably the fastest way to find it would be by tracking reddit about this 104C.
Click to expand...

"It's gonna have flying rainbow unicorns! Seriously, they said so - trust me! I just don't have a source. But you can go look for it yourself."

...this.

If you claim something based on some information you've gathered, you are the one who has to substantiate the claim and possibly refer us to the information. Everything else may lead to misinformation spreading.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
But seamless procedural planetary landing means going from space to planet seamlessly like in Elite.
There is no second meaning to that.

This means exactly that You're going from space to atmosphere, pass through atmosphere, fly over procedurally generated terrain and land in hand crafted city.
Now its all about how those all components are connected and where do You lose control over Your ship.
 
B

Burny

Member
KKRT00 said:
But seamless procedural planetary landing means going from space to planet seamlessly like in Elite.
There is no second meaning to that.
Click to expand...

There is also nothing necessarily "procedural" about the landing. It's manual, unless it's on rails - either unchanging ones or paths computed on the fly, according to whatever the world requires, which is more of a pathfinding problem than it has to do with procedural generation of planets.

And without taking the quotes from the September report into account, the video itself doesn't mention procedural concerning the landings at all. The term used in it is "free-form". Which suggests (semi-?) manual landings. :p
 
D

Dictator93

Member
Interview with Mark Hamill about Star Citizen teaser

This should be cool when it comes out on the 19th.

BY THE WAY, they have constantly been mentioning how they finished the rig on Hamill's character and have been putting him into a scene where he is flying a ship.

Perhaps that will be debuted on Thursday along with the opening of his bio page on the website like Bishop?

That would be interesting.
SmartBase said:
I can dig the combo of procedural planets and hand crafted cities but as always, seeing is believing.
Click to expand...

Something this game has been doing each time it comes to stage. Also, this is Foundry 42 Frankfurt.. they have the talent to make something like that.
 
B

Burny

Member
Zabojnik said:
"You were saying, Burny?"
Click to expand...

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Just that we'll soon be landing on planets. Sometime later this year. Or at the beginning of next year. And it's going to be really cool. Trust me! Above all, it's going to be procedural! Err... free-form!

...

>.<
 
B

Burny

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
Landing/takoffs are my fetish in flight games, give me control damnit.
Click to expand...

But don't you see? It's procedural! (Sorry KKRT00, I'll stop being a pedantic ass. ;-) )

On a more serious note: I would be fine with the variant I described above - manually entering the atmosphere and approaching the landing hub and then having the autopilot take over for the last 20-30 seconds or so. Sure, complete manual control would be nicer, but if their design decision necessiate the on rails sequence, that version would hide it decently.
 
Z

Zabojnik

Member
Burny <3

What I'd like to see is a proper, somewhat ochestrated space battle. Doesn't even have to be in the context of S42 or whatever. Just a nice looking test level with a couple of capital ships and dozens of AI fighters going balls out against each other. Chaos. Give me chaos.

Also, not to be an asshole to those who put in all the hard work ... but does the org logo really have to be, you know, NeoGAF's logo? It would work much better if it was (subtly) incorporated in brand new, made up from scratch logo. Something unique.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
Burny said:
But don't you see? It's procedural! (Sorry KKRT00, I'll stop being a pedantic ass. ;-) )

On a more serious note: I would be fine with the variant I described above - manually entering the atmosphere and approaching the landing hub and then having the autopilot take over for the last 20-30 seconds or so. Sure, complete manual control would be nicer, but if their design decision necessiate the on rails sequence, that version would hide it decently.
Click to expand...

They can also do it like Ace Combat, make the approach into the atmosphere etc be on rails and give the final approach back to the player. Doing all the touchdown and fine piloting to land after a sortie or travel just feels right IMO.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
Burny said:
There is also nothing necessarily "procedural" about the landing. It's manual, unless it's on rails - either unchanging ones or paths computed on the fly, according to whatever the world requires, which is more of a pathfinding problem than it has to do with procedural generation of planets.

And without taking the quotes from the September report into account, the video itself doesn't mention procedural concerning the landings at all. The term used in it is "free-form". Which suggests (semi-?) manual landings. :p
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm thinking about rendering technology and You are thinking about gameplay control :)
 
R

Raticus79

Seek victory, not fairness
Zabojnik said:
Also, not to be an asshole to those who put in all the hard work ... but does the org logo really have to be, you know, NeoGAF's logo? It would work much better if it was (subtly) incorporated in brand new, made up from scratch logo. Something unique.
Click to expand...

I think it's obscure enough to leave the basic shape intact, replace the materials and just come up with a plausible in-universe name with the same acronym. The vast majority of orgs out there aren't trying to be in-universe at all. Lots named after news sites, streamers, etc.

By the way, the logo sizes are 24x24 for the mini icon (forums, profiles) and 175x175 for the mid-sized one which gets resized for list views. I think we might need to wait for an overnight update job or something before the one that shows up in the org list gets updated.

I put one of the earlier renders in place as the 175x175 image for now so you can get an idea of what it looks like there. (resized from 500, so it's not clean scaling yet)
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/NEOGAF (might need to reload to get the latest one)
I gave Zalusithix branding access if you want to try things out or tweak anything. You should be able to get into Admin > Branding > Appearance now.

Edit: Also set the name to "Neo Galactic Advancement Foundation" as a placeholder so we can see how that works. It's wrapping on a couple of screens, but the length seems ok overall, especially considering some like XPLOR are wrapping three lines. Working with the name, I set the org type to resources/social, thinking of an interplanetary development concept. Still leaves room for some aggressive actions - think of Varys's "for the realm" ethos. (just playing around with some ideas)
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Zabojnik said:
Also, not to be an asshole to those who put in all the hard work ... but does the org logo really have to be, you know, NeoGAF's logo? It would work much better if it was (subtly) incorporated in brand new, made up from scratch logo. Something unique.
Click to expand...
Well, I still plan on abstracting the actual logo off the Neogaf logo using the silhouette that you see in this render. This wouldn't make it an entirely new logo, but would be unique to the organization while still evoking the Neogaf heritage. It would also be vectored and simplistic in nature for ship applications if it ever comes to pass. The physical versions that you've seen many iterations of would mainly be used in the Org branding on the landing page. They'd basically be a way to take the (now abstracted) logo and make it into a solid object for in game lore - a solid object that just so happens to look just like the current Neogaf logo. ;)

At least that's my current thought process. Everything is obviously in a state of flux.

Raticus79 said:
By the way, the logo sizes are 24x24 for the mini icon (forums, etc) and 175x175 for the mid-sized one which resized for list views.

I put one of the earlier renders in place as the 175x175 image for now so you can get an idea of what it looks like there.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/NEOGAF
(might need to reload to get the latest one)
I gave Zalusithix branding access if you want to tweak anything. You should be able to get into Admin > Branding > Appearance now.

Edit: Also set the name to "Neo Galactic Advancement Foundation" as a placeholder so we can see how that works. It's wrapping on a couple of screens, but the length seems ok overall, especially considering some like XPLOR are wrapping three lines.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've been playing with resizing the renders to the various sizes and seeing how much detail is retained for the various materials and effects. Natively it renders at over 600px (and takes about 4 minutes per render pass using a 980TI), so what I see at the rendering stage doesn't translate over directly to the sizes that would be used on the page. That said, too much detail is lost to consider using it for anything really small. A simple vector logo is required for smaller things.

Late night edit: first take at the mini logo/emblem that's used in the forums / My RSI menu. I decided to go with a broken ring with each half weighted in the opposite directions as opposed to just a halo on the one side. The white zig-zag hovers between them. It's still very much the Gaf logo, but stylized in a way that it doesn't look like the actual Gaf logo was just copy/pasted into place. The transparent ring structure places it closer in style to the official icons used in the forums as well.
 
B

Burny

Member
KKRT00 said:
Seems low ;/ I was expecting more hype for this game from Elite fans, preview looked really great.
Click to expand...

Why? Because Elite fans haven't invested all their money into 300$+ ship concept pledges from a certain other hopefully-soon-to-be-game? ;p

Frankly, I would've expected more support from space game fans in general, which includes Star Citizen backers (unless they don't consider themselves as such and are only interested in that one game). The imo obscene amount some people have spend on Star Citizen pledges could do with a bit of distribution, because competition is actually a great thing for raising the bar in the genre in general.

Who knows why it didn't receive more support - maybe the limited scope or being late to the party had something to do with it? At least they got a basis to work with now. As I said in the kickstartert thread: They're doing things neither Star Citizen nor Elite are doing, and I'm hopeful that they can expand the space game genre.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
Burny said:
Why? Because Elite fans haven't invested all their money into 300$+ ship concept pledges from a certain other hopefully-soon-to-be-game? ;p
Click to expand...
No, because it seems to be more in line with what original Elite was :)

I agree about all space games fans, but i think Elite community seems like perfect fit for this game.
 
A

Anton Sugar

Member
KKRT00 said:
No, because it seems to be more in line with what original Elite was :)

I agree about all space games fans, but i think Elite community seems like perfect fit for this game.
Click to expand...

It's pretty different from Elite, and Star Citizen, for that matter. It's almost entirely focused on multiplayer combat. I don't think there are any exploration or trading mechanics, for example, which are a core part of Elite.

Seems more like Planetside 2 in space, which sounds awesome (to me). Burny knows more about it than I do, though.
 
B

Burny

Member
KKRT00 said:
No, because it seems to be more in line with what original Elite was :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It takes a bit of a closer look at the kickstarter campaign to figure out the general picture, but it's a match based PvP arena.

In short: It's nothing like the original Elite, Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen.
 
K

KKRT00

Member
Burny said:
Absolutely not. It takes a bit of a closer look at the kickstarter campaign to figure out the general picture, but it's a match based PvP arena.

In short: It's nothing like the original Elite, Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen.
Click to expand...

Hmm, strange i've watched only some twitch footage earlier, but i thought You could build structures and trade.
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Burny said:
Absolutely not. It takes a bit of a closer look at the kickstarter campaign to figure out the general picture, but it's a match based PvP arena.

In short: It's nothing like the original Elite, Elite Dangerous or Star Citizen.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's the very reason it wasn't exactly a barnstormer? That sort of gameplay doesn't really interest me much at least. Combat isn't my focus in Elite Dangerous, and isn't going to be my primary focus in Star Citizen either. Combat on the side is fine, but the primary focus? Meh, I'll pass.
 
A

Anton Sugar

Member
KKRT00 said:
Hmm, strange i've watched only some twitch footage earlier, but i thought You could build structures and trade.
Click to expand...

There seems to be kind of a meta "base-building" game that bolsters the MP game. I think the star ports/stations you can build help you respawn/spawn more ships, upgrade ships, etc.

Zalusithix said:
Perhaps that's the very reason it wasn't exactly a barnstormer? That sort of gameplay doesn't really interest me much at least. Combat isn't my focus in Elite Dangerous, and isn't going to be my primary focus in Star Citizen either. Combat on the side is fine, but the primary focus? Meh, I'll pass.
Click to expand...

And that's fair. I like that it is doing things that neither Elite nor Star Citizen is capable of doing. One of the things I love most in Elite is Wing combat with friends, so I:B should help scratch that itch but on a massive scale. I:B's battles, in theory, will look like the battles that Elite keeps showing off in trailers (that never happen in-game :p).
 
B

Burny

Member
Anton Sugar said:
There seems to be kind of a meta "base-building" game that bolsters the MP game. I think the star ports/stations you can build help you respawn/spawn more ships, upgrade ships, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, from what I gathered they are planning to have three factions in a match, each with an automated economy. Building structures was actually their "semi persistence" stretch goal, that they didn't reach. That economy will provide players with funding for ships and other players can try to disrupt it.

Zalusithix said:
Perhaps that's the very reason it wasn't exactly a barnstormer? That sort of gameplay doesn't really interest me much at least. Combat isn't my focus in Elite Dangerous, and isn't going to be my primary focus in Star Citizen either. Combat on the side is fine, but the primary focus? Meh, I'll pass.
Click to expand...

Whatever floats one's boat. But I agree, it's a possible reason for the less broad appeal. It's actually been a bit of an odyssey until they arrived at the kickstarter and the scope they are targeting for Battlescape. The engine has been in development for years already by a single person iirc and it was at some point intended to be used for an MMO, quiet similar to Elite/SC - Infinity: Quest for Earth. According to Wikipedia, the development of that game never started. It's an interesting read.

The upside of not having to deal with the instanced nature of ED and probably Star Citizen: With an active server running in the background of matches, I suspect Battlescape is the most likely candidate to provide us with convincing large scale real time player battles combined with direct ship controls. =)
 
Zalusithix

Zalusithix

Member
Burny said:
Whatever floats one's boat. But I agree, it's a possible reason for the less broad appeal. It's actually been a bit of an odyssey until they arrived at the kickstarter and the scope they are targeting for Battlescape. The engine has been in development for years already by a single person iirc and it was at some point intended to be used for an MMO, quiet similar to Elite/SC - Infinity: Quest for Earth. According to Wikipedia, the development of that game never started. It's an interesting read.

The upside of not having to deal with the instanced nature of ED and probably Star Citizen: With an active server running in the background of matches, I suspect Battlescape is the most likely candidate to provide us with convincing large scale real time player battles combined with direct ship controls. =)
Click to expand...

Well, I just look at the popularity of Mobius in Elite, and organizations like Xplor in Star Citizen. Clearly a good chunk of the player base interested in these games aren't all that interested in combat (especially PvP based). By centering a game around it, you'll necessarily lose a chunk of funding. Potentially compounding this, I have a feeling that space games pull from a crowd that are at least a bit less PvP-centric in comparison to the baseline. I obviously have nothing to back that up stat wise, but space is often romanticized as the final frontier. One that is so vast and harsh that humans will have to work together to progress in it instead of working against (and killing) each other. I mean, look at KSP. No combat at all, but attracted plenty of people interested in space.

Then there's the fact that PvP focused games are quite common. People looking for a game to face off against another human have a million options. Existing, proven options with active player bases. A PvP-centric space game will only heavily pull from people that are interested in both space / space ships and in PvP combat. It'll have a very tough time pulling from the general audience that can be served by the other games. Meanwhile, games that offer cooperative alternative gameplay options are few and far in between. A space game with exploration, trading, etc can pull from people that aren't even necessarily interested in space simply by the virtue of everything else.

That said, the limited scope should give it a good shot at being good at what it's aiming to be - even with the much reduced budget when compared to Elite/SC.
 
T

tuxfool

Banned
Burny said:
The upside of not having to deal with the instanced nature of ED and probably Star Citizen: With an active server running in the background of matches, I suspect Battlescape is the most likely candidate to provide us with convincing large scale real time player battles combined with direct ship controls. =)
Click to expand...

If the networking code is p2p, then large scale battles will be less likely, not more.
 
C

CyberPunked

Member
Some screenshots from Alpha 2.0 QA test:
DoDbAwJ.jpg

qkFAi4F.jpg

KD2xZtD.jpg

BtlQIpC.jpg

ltmBbFy.jpg
Click to expand...
The rest can be found here: http://imgur.com/a/Al85d
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Star Citizen player reports CIG is making him sign an NDA before getting a refund
2
337
lmimmfn replied
Star Citizen crowdfunding passes $700 million
News 2 3 4
151
8K
Buggy Loop replied
Star Citizen Alpha 3.23 update: Adventure Beckons (Fauna, Creature Hunting plus more)
2 3 4 5
245
14K
Comandr replied
12 Years, $700 Million, and Still No Game: The Turbulent Saga of Star Citizen
2 3
116
6K
Jigsaah replied
$50,000 spare? Star Citizen wants your cash
News
20
2K
Ribi replied
Top Bottom