These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Star Citizen v EVE

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#361 - 2013-09-05 13:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Lady Maladi wrote:

Apples versus anything that isn't apples wholly proves my point, something I appreciate your acknowledging. The rest of your blabber I chose to ignore as the rotten oranges you seem fond of.

If you want to see more interesting videos or images borne from EVE then there are dozens of resources:

EVE Travel
Rooks and Kings YouTube



Yes, they are different games aren't they? But hey, I wrote that in one of my previous posts:

raven666wings wrote:


This is something we won't be able to do in EVE unless CCP upgrades it's engine. It's more of a tactical game rather than a simulator and doesnt have newtonian physics or a dynamic environment, everything like planets and moons, stars constellations etc are static in one big static universe where the only things that change position are the player owned structures or ships and npc missions/sites.


Your point is to disagree on agreeing? I don't quite follow.

You seem to be having a rough morning. Why don't you have a cup of tea and wake up before commenting my posts with such sperg? I mean, I imagine you might have this urge of coming at me for pointing out in a "Star Citizen vs EVE" thread the fact that EVE is hiding its nerdy and slacked gameplay behind bling videos instead of showing it like it is, something that Star Citizen and other newer titles don't need to do because they actually have a better game engine... but camon... at least try coming up with something that makes the slightest bit of sense instead of this community videos mambo jambo.

more SC ingame footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg kinda looks like the imaginary gameplay that CCP draws on their promo videos, only that in SC its actually in the game
Stegas Tyrano
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2013-09-05 13:11:04 UTC
A response to a point made earlier in the thread.

Just because Star Citizen looks and plays like an arcade space combat sim on release doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Like CCP, CIG plan on continuously developing for the game and could probably do a better job seeing as they won't have to fight against their own jumbled code.

SC could be just as complex and in depth as EVE within a few years of it's release.

Herping your derp since 19Potato - [url=https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2403364][Proposal] - Ingame Visual Adverts[/url]
digitalwanderer
DW inc
#363 - 2013-09-06 01:59:28 UTC  |  Edited by: digitalwanderer
Gotta love that bengal class carrier not just for it's looks, but it's also armed to the teeth as it has it's carrier wings, has both a rear entry and front exit for the fighters for simultanious landings and launches, and 128 guns of all types and sizes on the outer hull, from capital size to AA guns for small and fast moving targets....Big smile



It's a design that makes sense when a ship this size carries a lot of people on board and want to keep them safe....You want something that can put up a hell of a fight on it's own, never mind with the support of smaller ships working with it in a gang or fleet.
Tanesha Kring
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#364 - 2013-09-06 05:12:01 UTC
Nyla Skin wrote:
Alpheias wrote:

If Star Citizen features Newtonian mechanics, I sincerely hope that they implement a realistic planetary model with different mass, different gravity, inclination vectors and so forth to create a proper experience for the player when landing on planets or Star Citizen will just fall through as a Freelancer 2.0 with prettier graphics but with cherry picking when it comes to realism which frankly would be a huge disappointment.


I somehow doubt it since Newtonian physics were not a 'thing' in any of the games that made Chris Roberts famous. In general space ships were flown like earth fighterplanes and went roughly where the nose was pointing. At best it was possible to put the ship to a 'slide' using afterburner, releasing it and then turning the nose(it was very cool mechanic btw). I don't think this game will have proper Newtonian flightmode á la I-war. I would much prefer it had, though.


Chris Roberts has stated that there will be realistic physics when discussing why the thruster effects will not reflect this. I guess the reasoning is that since realistically thrusters would always be firing in all directions in short burst and it was decided that this looked bad. However I still wouldn't expect the same level of realism with orbital physics, atmospheric entry effects and so on. The learning curve is just too high to make it viable for a mainstream audience without fudging things a lot.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#365 - 2013-09-06 06:47:20 UTC
Tanesha Kring wrote:
Nyla Skin wrote:
Alpheias wrote:

If Star Citizen features Newtonian mechanics, I sincerely hope that they implement a realistic planetary model with different mass, different gravity, inclination vectors and so forth to create a proper experience for the player when landing on planets or Star Citizen will just fall through as a Freelancer 2.0 with prettier graphics but with cherry picking when it comes to realism which frankly would be a huge disappointment.


I somehow doubt it since Newtonian physics were not a 'thing' in any of the games that made Chris Roberts famous. In general space ships were flown like earth fighterplanes and went roughly where the nose was pointing. At best it was possible to put the ship to a 'slide' using afterburner, releasing it and then turning the nose(it was very cool mechanic btw). I don't think this game will have proper Newtonian flightmode á la I-war. I would much prefer it had, though.


Chris Roberts has stated that there will be realistic physics when discussing why the thruster effects will not reflect this. I guess the reasoning is that since realistically thrusters would always be firing in all directions in short burst and it was decided that this looked bad. However I still wouldn't expect the same level of realism with orbital physics, atmospheric entry effects and so on. The learning curve is just too high to make it viable for a mainstream audience without fudging things a lot.


Wel, I too would love the option to disengage the fly by wire system which simulates air flight. Specially if I run out of fuel, killing the "brake" thrusters and "glide" to my destination would make every sense in the universe, but don't know how's the discussion/intent on this.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Tanesha Kring
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2013-09-06 07:31:04 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tanesha Kring wrote:

Chris Roberts has stated that there will be realistic physics when discussing why the thruster effects will not reflect this. I guess the reasoning is that since realistically thrusters would always be firing in all directions in short burst and it was decided that this looked bad. However I still wouldn't expect the same level of realism with orbital physics, atmospheric entry effects and so on. The learning curve is just too high to make it viable for a mainstream audience without fudging things a lot.


Wel, I too would love the option to disengage the fly by wire system which simulates air flight. Specially if I run out of fuel, killing the "brake" thrusters and "glide" to my destination would make every sense in the universe, but don't know how's the discussion/intent on this.


Would be interesting. Just picture what you could do in space with manual flight controls, but the draw back then would be that most of the wiggy maneuvers would realistically kill the pilot just from their brain bouncing around their skull. It will be interesting and fun if they make it so you can. Even if in reality inertia can be a *****.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#367 - 2013-09-06 08:40:26 UTC
Tanesha Kring wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tanesha Kring wrote:

Chris Roberts has stated that there will be realistic physics when discussing why the thruster effects will not reflect this. I guess the reasoning is that since realistically thrusters would always be firing in all directions in short burst and it was decided that this looked bad. However I still wouldn't expect the same level of realism with orbital physics, atmospheric entry effects and so on. The learning curve is just too high to make it viable for a mainstream audience without fudging things a lot.


Wel, I too would love the option to disengage the fly by wire system which simulates air flight. Specially if I run out of fuel, killing the "brake" thrusters and "glide" to my destination would make every sense in the universe, but don't know how's the discussion/intent on this.


Would be interesting. Just picture what you could do in space with manual flight controls, but the draw back then would be that most of the wiggy maneuvers would realistically kill the pilot just from their brain bouncing around their skull. It will be interesting and fun if they make it so you can. Even if in reality inertia can be a *****.


Fly by wire are extremely sophisticate even nowadays. Airbus are known for having a ancillary mode where the flight computers are partially disabled and allow direct input while keeping the airplane within its structural and flight envelope limits.

So it would be sensible for SC to allow "manual" flight within G limits, unless the flight computer was FUBAR and the daring pilot had to choose wether to eject or try to command the thrusters manually... (coming to a hardcore server near you).

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Tanesha Kring
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#368 - 2013-09-06 09:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanesha Kring
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:

Fly by wire are extremely sophisticate even nowadays. Airbus are known for having a ancillary mode where the flight computers are partially disabled and allow direct input while keeping the airplane within its structural and flight envelope limits.

So it would be sensible for SC to allow "manual" flight within G limits, unless the flight computer was FUBAR and the daring pilot had to choose wether to eject or try to command the thrusters manually... (coming to a hardcore server near you).


Well this is where you could have something like atmospheric mode where the flight system adjusts (I suppose that is in essence what fly-by-wire is for anyway) to allow for aerodynamic lift more than rocket thrust to maintain flight.

On Edit: Thinking about simulating atmospheric flight and a ancillary flight mode I think it would be just a matter of figuring whether the forces involved would allow for even greater maneuverability with relative safety.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#369 - 2013-09-06 10:25:09 UTC
raven666wings wrote:


more SC ingame footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg kinda looks like the imaginary gameplay that CCP draws on their promo videos, only that in SC its actually in the game


It is using the CryEngine3 for certain, but it is still a trailer with animated characters and animated objects so I disagree with you that it is ingame footage, as as you claim, and what should be common knowledge to anyone following this project, Star Citizen is still in development.

Pray tell how you think segmented scenes from a trailer is ingame footage when anyone with a good understanding of 3D modelling and animation can, using the assets, put something together. By your own logic, the old Evolution video is a ingame video when it is clearly not.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Tanesha Kring
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#370 - 2013-09-06 10:36:47 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
raven666wings wrote:


more SC ingame footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg kinda looks like the imaginary gameplay that CCP draws on their promo videos, only that in SC its actually in the game


It is using the CryEngine3 for certain, but it is still a trailer with animated characters and animated objects so I disagree with you that it is ingame footage, as as you claim, and what should be common knowledge to anyone following this project, Star Citizen is still in development.

Pray tell how you think segmented scenes from a trailer is ingame footage when anyone with a good understanding of 3D modelling and animation can, using the assets, put something together. By your own logic, the old Evolution video is a ingame video when it is clearly not.


It was done with the prototype build that's been used in some of the dev videos and some clever editing to make it all appear more finished than it actually was.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#371 - 2013-09-06 10:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Tanesha Kring wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
raven666wings wrote:


more SC ingame footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg kinda looks like the imaginary gameplay that CCP draws on their promo videos, only that in SC its actually in the game


It is using the CryEngine3 for certain, but it is still a trailer with animated characters and animated objects so I disagree with you that it is ingame footage, as as you claim, and what should be common knowledge to anyone following this project, Star Citizen is still in development.

Pray tell how you think segmented scenes from a trailer is ingame footage when anyone with a good understanding of 3D modelling and animation can, using the assets, put something together. By your own logic, the old Evolution video is a ingame video when it is clearly not.


It was done with the prototype build that's been used in some of the dev videos and some clever editing to make it all appear more finished than it actually was.


Ditto. Actually SC's version of CE3 already was customized and built before the crowdfunding campaign, with all the physics coded in by Roberts himself, and so they essentially ran a few animations through it, using the same assets developed for the game.

So it's not "in game footage" but "in engine footage". And that still is better than the latest batch of EVE fictionalized videos and trailers, of which the most fictional of all turns to be the first thing a new player sees in game.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#372 - 2013-09-06 10:54:57 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tanesha Kring wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
raven666wings wrote:


more SC ingame footage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlIWJlz6-Eg kinda looks like the imaginary gameplay that CCP draws on their promo videos, only that in SC its actually in the game


It is using the CryEngine3 for certain, but it is still a trailer with animated characters and animated objects so I disagree with you that it is ingame footage, as as you claim, and what should be common knowledge to anyone following this project, Star Citizen is still in development.

Pray tell how you think segmented scenes from a trailer is ingame footage when anyone with a good understanding of 3D modelling and animation can, using the assets, put something together. By your own logic, the old Evolution video is a ingame video when it is clearly not.


It was done with the prototype build that's been used in some of the dev videos and some clever editing to make it all appear more finished than it actually was.


Ditto. Actually SC's version of CE3 already was customized and built before the crowdfunding campaign, with all the physics coded in by Roberts himself, and so they essentially ran a few animations through it, using the same assets developed for the game.

So it's not "in game footage" but "in engine footage". And that still is better than the latest batch of EVE fictionalized videos and trailers, of which the most fictional of all turns to be the first thing a new player sees in game.


You mean 'finished' like this? :p

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#373 - 2013-09-06 11:01:44 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
So it's not "in game footage" but "in engine footage". And that still is better than the latest batch of EVE fictionalized videos and trailers, of which the most fictional of all turns to be the first thing a new player sees in game.


I kinda liked the "Origins" trailer, though...

Prerendered in-engine trailers are nothing new in the business... as it stands, nobody can really tell what SC will look like in the end... not even that fance hangar-module backers get to play around with is in any way final... so, yea, we can only guess.

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#374 - 2013-09-06 11:11:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Shalua Rui wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
So it's not "in game footage" but "in engine footage". And that still is better than the latest batch of EVE fictionalized videos and trailers, of which the most fictional of all turns to be the first thing a new player sees in game.


I kinda liked the "Origins" trailer, though...

Prerendered in-engine trailers are nothing new in the business... as it stands, nobody can really tell what SC will look like in the end... not even that fance hangar-module backers get to play around with is in any way final... so, yea, we can only guess.


The "Origins" trailer is cool, but it falcon-punches lore in the face. The matter of wether capsuleers must die in order to become capsuleers is not resolved, and the trailer depicts the pod as a cockpit with a HUD rather than the ship-to-brain goo-filled interface it is by every piece of lore.

The part on ships blowing to pieces, going down in flames and ejecting debris is industry standard and any resemblance to EVE is unintentional. Roll

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#375 - 2013-09-06 11:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalua Rui
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
The "Origins" trailer is cool, but it falcon-punches lore in the face. The matter of wether capsuleers must die in order to become capsuleers is not resolved, and the trailer depicts the pod as a cockpit with a HUD rather than the ship-to-brain goo-filled interface it is by every piece of lore.


I always had the impression that caspuleers aught to "die" (meaning: being cloned one time) in order to become what they are, and the "cockpit" is, in my opinion, just the representation of what the pilot "sees" in her mind... so I thought it was ok.

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
The part on ships blowing to pieces, going down in flames and ejecting debris is industry standard and any resemblance to EVE is unintentional. Roll


Yea, well, that's something I didn't like for years... I also don't like the sound of exploding ships in space, even thought that tose are (by lore) only digital representations created by the capsule control software.

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
Tanesha Kring
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#376 - 2013-09-06 11:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanesha Kring
Alpheias wrote:

You mean 'finished' like this? :p


It's not bad. To be honest though the hair looks like a hair textured ncloth and a bit clumpy as a result but otherwise it's pretty good.
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#377 - 2013-09-07 09:48:35 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Alpheias wrote:

It is using the CryEngine3 for certain, but it is still a trailer with animated characters and animated objects so I disagree with you that it is ingame footage, as as you claim, and what should be common knowledge to anyone following this project, Star Citizen is still in development.

Pray tell how you think segmented scenes from a trailer is ingame footage when anyone with a good understanding of 3D modelling and animation can, using the assets, put something together. By your own logic, the old Evolution video is a ingame video when it is clearly not.


Hum... so by your rationale, the trailer is using Cry Engine 3 but the footage is not ingame footage because the characters and assets are animated?!?! Interesting. I thought this was what the graphic engine did to them... You're suggesting then that they should have simply put them static in the trailer? Sorry again I don't follow... you seem rather confused. Oh yes.. that video you linked there is another example of an EVE trailer using EVE assets in some animation software other than EVE's graphic engine. I agree with you on that.

Alpheias wrote:

You mean 'finished' like this? :p


It's not finished, is it? Hold on.. aren't you from the "CCP please fire the Carbon developers or we throw a tantrum, because EVE is only about spaceships" crowd? And you're complaining that it's not finished?!?! .... The contradiction is strong in this one.
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#378 - 2013-09-07 10:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Shalua Rui wrote:

I always had the impression that caspuleers aught to "die" (meaning: being cloned one time) in order to become what they are, and the "cockpit" is, in my opinion, just the representation of what the pilot "sees" in her mind... so I thought it was ok.


Pilots will only exist in EVE when they add Valkyrie to it. Capsuleers having a cockpit representation in their mind doesn't make any sense in my opinion, since they aren't operating a ship that possesses one. They are simply connected to a big machine through a neural connection and the representation they should get in their mind would be at most a view of their own new mechanical body, possibly provided by 1 or more cameras installed in the ship that would act as their new eyes and provide sense of perception.
I also don't agree with the view that people would need to die once to become an immortal capsuleer with the use of mind transfer to new clones. The way this fictional mind transfer is supposed to work, as we've seen in a recent Dust514 trailer, is with these implants grafted to the person's brain, which will somehow transfer the consciouness of the person through space into her/his new clone. So this means that these implants could probably be surgically installed in the aspiring capsuleer and transfer his/her mind to a new clone at the very first death, saving his/her consciouness and identity.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#379 - 2013-09-07 11:18:18 UTC
raven666wings wrote:
Shalua Rui wrote:

I always had the impression that caspuleers aught to "die" (meaning: being cloned one time) in order to become what they are, and the "cockpit" is, in my opinion, just the representation of what the pilot "sees" in her mind... so I thought it was ok.


Pilots will only exist in EVE when they add Valkyrie to it. Capsuleers having a cockpit representation in their mind doesn't make any sense in my opinion, since they aren't operating a ship that posseses one. They are simply connected to a big machine through a neural connection and the representation they should get in their mind would be at most a view of their own new mechanical body, possibly provided by 1 or more cameras installed in the ship that would act as their new eyes and provide sense of perception.
I also don't agree with the view that people would need to die once to become an immortal capsuleer with the use of mind transfer to new clones. The way this fictional mind transfer is supposed to work, as we've seen in a recent Dust514 trailer, is with these implants grafted to the person's brain, which will somehow transfer the consciouness of the person through space into her/his new clone. So this means that these implants could probably be surgically installed in the aspiring capsuleer and transfer his mind to a new clone at the very first death, saving his/her consciouness and identity.


As per lore, that's exactly what was done in the earlier stages of capsule technology, before clones existed. It was quite risky, though.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
raven666wings
Cyber Chaos Crew
#380 - 2013-09-07 11:35:16 UTC  |  Edited by: raven666wings
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
As per lore, that's exactly what was done in the earlier stages of capsule technology, before clones existed. It was quite risky, though.


I suppose this "mind transfer" process will only work if there is a receiving clone to where the dying person's mind gets sent to. And the only way that you'll be able to turn someone into a capsuleer without making that person lose his/her consciousness and identity (die permanently) is by implanting the devices on the subject before he dies the first time. Or else the new capsuleer would just be a mindless meatbag.