This is all getting silly. These engines are so far apart it’s ridiculous to even compare them. One is virtually bug free with no lag, the other loaded with bugs after years of constant rewriting; one has real life size planets, the other screenshots; one has actual landing on planets, the other rails; one has atmospheric flight, around entire planets, the other static predetermined flight in designated areas; one aims for 1000 players the other barely able to manage 50. And lastly one has no loading screens while the other cannot function without them. But hey, if Star Citizen is your thing that’s fine…but comparing the two is a childish endeavor and smacks of fanboy trolling.
3 Likes
I agree with most of this except that star citizen now gets procedually generated planets etc… But looking at their planetary belts still makes me lol.
1 Like
Or procedurally generated screenshots. 
Those are the smallest moons I’ve ever seen.
3 Likes
Ooh! Ooh! A chance to post an xkcd with little or no relevance to the conversation!
I have finished my attempt to give this conversation some levity, carry on.
8 Likes
I think we should stay polite, shouldnt we? Literaly insulting other forum members with different opinions personally is not that kind of conversation style I’ve noticed here in the forum to date?!
Discussions especially about the technical progress of SC by using an existing engine here in this single thread is especially interesting for those I-Novae forum members that are also active in the other I-Novae forum thread overe here at Procedural Terrain Rendering How-To as quite a lot choose a similar route when building their own space- or procedural prototypes. Hopefully it’ll still be possible to do this here in a normal way. 
2 Likes
You seem more intent on defending SC gameplay and development than discussing Procedural Rendering, Thus this smacks of Fanboyism - just an opinion mind you so you can cut the passive aggressive bunk. What’s more, you don’t see me stalking SC forums trying to justify the Infinity Engine or IBS gameplay - that would not only be fanboy trolling but just rude. But if you still feel compelled to pretend it’s all about Procedural Rending, then be my guest. Here at least, unlike SC, IBS doesn’t ban people for their opinions - even ones that appear to have an ulterior motive.
I am pretty confident they wouldn’t ban IBS supporters / forumlers just for different opinions on another game. Some should calm down and don’t rate dicussions and likes/dislikes of another game such as SC (or NMS or ED just to add a few) in a thread that is intended for that as an “defending” or “attacking” of something simply because they discuss them and rate things differently than you while supporting IBS or they name those in one sentence. They, INS, for sure would ban, or should, if people remain fill their posts with insultings or simple off topic content.
That said, from my side I am ending this 1:1 talk as it doesn’t add any value to this thread or leads to anything.
Hopefully this thread can get back to sense discussion for those of us who are fans of multiple space games (also, but not only IBS) and discuss the different aspects, content, technicals aspects of them (in this case SC) without this discussion being ranted down.
Yesterdays ATV has a section about planetary atmosphere (basically about the effect on the ship and atmosphere flight model) that shows scenes about a ship being mid height about the planet surface. For those interested the scenes are at ~3:15 and ~4:25.
4 Likes
You really have no idea what lengths CIG will go to insure unbridled enthusiasm for their product. Hell, even Wingman got banned. lol. Please, if you are going to talk about subjects, do your homework.
I was talking about the INS forum, and anyway, would you please stop this personal rant @Zen ? Lets get back to topic too, do you?
1 Like
Hey, wight knight, justify this:
1 Like
Yes this repetition is going to be interesting as it shouldn’t happen. It can(!), if you handle the input parameters of your noise algorithm wrong, but this would be a very rookie mistake. It more seems to me they combined a noise algorithm (most probably the typical perlin derivates) with some kind of splatting technique, at least this could explain that. It does not seem to repeat on the left hand side (at least hard to tell in the video, not sure) and inbetween and the around the repetition there are different details, and there are no visible seams as why I dont guess its not completely non-procedural. So I guess its a combination of noise and splatting. In one of the developer videos they mentioned they allow the artists to manipulate the procedural planet in a post-process (maybe by storing a heightmap they combine with the noise result), so that would underline that. However it wouldnt make sense to add those repetative hill details in that case as these hills are nothing that is in any way superior as what a normal noise algorithm can achive - it would only make sense if you would like to add completely different terrain formations against what a normal noise algorith normaly creates, e.g. deep craters or any other specific terrain deformations.
Yeah, I wonder what this will be like when we finaly see it in 2.7. That is something they clearly should avoid.
There’s enough salt around here to cover a full scale procedurally generated planet.
Its almost like weve been waiting 10 years for an in-development game to arrive or something. Funny how that works.
3 Likes
No insult intended, but perhaps English is not your native language? I clearly stated IBS doesn’t ban people for their opinions - that is a SC tactic’ but then you follow up with “I am pretty confident they wouldn’t ban IBS supporters / formulers just for different opinions on another game” and then say you were talking about IBS? So you are agreeing? Clearly your response is either miscalculated or an disingenuous attempt at trolling. Judging from your dogged determination, I would say the latter. But if English is not your native language then I can understand why you are posting confusing, contradictory statements. So yes, lets get back to topics that talk about ‘procedural’ and not spend endless posts defending SC’s dubious business practices, and lets not engage in accusing others of ‘personal rants’ because your attempt to engage in passive aggressive trolling isn’t welcome.
Your messages would feel less insulting for the recepient if you wouldn’t fill them all with abuse such as “attempt at trolling”, “passive aggressive trolling”, “Thus this smacks of Fanboyism”, “a childish endeavor and smacks of fanboy trolling.”. The only thing I’d kindly like to ask is to think about that. Even if not intended to be insulting, it still can be. And to answer your question, no it is not. So, sorry if that went to confusion at some point.
With my original post I was hinting about that normaly for moderation in forums a talk about other games is fine while filling posts with stuff that insults personally is not, and so of course refered to here. I retrospectively agree that this might have been confusing in the quoted context. About your negative impression about the SC moderation and community work at certain points… well, yeah, their practices are at least questionable, ultimately I agree.
I don’t rate it that negative, but agree nonetheless. Luckily I personally haven’t seen people getting baned for negative criticism over there at SC, while the forum gets more sceptical for good reasons about the game and its delays meanwhile. The forum moderation is fine with me. But there must have been reasons especially Eric Peterson left. He did quite a lot for the community which everyone at RSI for sure was aware of, and the simple official explanation that the reorganization and concentration of the teams around LA and Erics desinterest of travel ultimately lead to that (although his “family first” reason is a vaild one always. They should have found a solution for him if the reorganization really was the reason, so who knows what else happened.
The other aspect for me is that there is a certain lack of information when it comes to the development progress. They for sure put on the one hand a lot of (IMHO very good) effort into community interaction with all the different kind of videos (ATV, TTD, BS, 10FTC, etc.), but the other hand when it comes details of the current state of their modules (FP-Module Star Marine, SQ42, or generally AC upcoming versions) they prefer to refer for the next big presentation in xx months rather than getting concrete or show or release something, saying its not “finally polished”. While on the one hand I would understand you don’t want to release something unfinished, its doubtfull if this is the right behavior for a crowdfunded game.
I’ve skipped the rest of that sentense for good reasons (refering to my first chapter in that comment), and appreciate getting back to the Star Citizen and Procedural techniques topic. Thanks (meant honestly).
I’d say it depends. Maybe the problem is the definition of “space game” is far to generic. One game is focussing on spaceship and space- or planetary flight mechanics, the other one of FPS elements in ships or stations, the third one on the mixture of both. At least for the last aspects (FP-elements) CE adds some support (and if its worst case only some tools and an initial engine to help you getting started), for the first aspects for sure not on the long run. Yes.
I’d, like @yuneeb90 , expect to see a large amount of rework done in comparision to the last CE version. With further rework yet to be done. E.g. pulling out the cryengine netcode. If this is a massive trainwreck as you say, maybe, maybe not. I’ve seen too much new code that has been a massive trainwreck from the start on (and I am not pointing at anything particular!). 
But yeah, I’d be curious too and like to get hands on it, to see how much rework went in, and how the precision changes in particular worked out.
Same here. Delays are bad, really. But if the outcome is fine (fingers crossed), then so be it, at least for me.
As mentioned somewhere previously, IMHO the release of 2.6 (incuding the Star Marine module) and especially 2.7 (larger star system, free planetary landings (including the procedural generation) which are both on the roadmap this year (fingers-crossed) should bring in better transparency of the state (good or bad) of their game. And if their customizations work out. I find that crucial because especially the first person module is a big part of their announced scope, as well as the large playable system is.
If both releases still show that there is a lot of effort to be put in (no matter if it is developer- or artist-releated) that would be worrying. Not because this could mean another time of wait, which would be fine with me, but I’d expect that at some point serious financial problems would rise up - delay is always bound with monetary loss in a project. And that large projectteam must have a very large runrate. Without an insight about the team’s volume change over time and the salaries payed I find it hard to tell when that moment would be. But with this large team, even if they free some roles not needed anymore and using an lower average salary, I doubt that they can run another full two years. Thats why I look forward to AC 2.6 and AC 2.7 to make up my opinion. The end of this year is going to be interesting, or even earlier, on the August 19th over here in Cologne. 
1 Like
I’m really in awe of how you can turn a simple sentence into a long drawn out defense of Star Citizen. First, I never said anything about Eric Peterson leaving. Second, I was referring to his being banned from forums - but somehow you managed to turn it into a long drawn out defense of SC and their amicable parting. Third, it is quite clear what you are doing here…you are peppering reasonable comments with fanboy rhetoric. And if you don’t like being called out…I’m sorry. I call it as I see it. No one here is asking you to hate Star Citizen, but there is a difference between information and disinformation, reasonable conclusions and wishful thinking.
You were talking about Wingman and I agreed that the whole happening around Eric at this point was questionable, including this leave which I was added to that statement. So nothing to argue about, thats one of the downsides of RSIs stories. My chapter you quoted is a critcic on RSI on how they behaved with Eric.
In my quoted post, yeah I dont critize this bad as others already do until 2.6. or 2.7 comes out, but I am quite sceptical about the aspects of RSI and SC I mentioned in my post, when it comes to the lack of information about the Star Marine model or lack or releases in general, of the monetary situation and so on. Period.
1 Like
I’m really in awe of how insulting you can be to someone who disagrees with you. I’m only here to push back on you because Joerg is too nice a guy to say anything that calls you out on your constant ad hominem attacks. Just stop with the insults, and debate the points. If he says that something is true, then explain why it’s not true. Don’t keep calling him names.
I think Joerg is the very essence of a forum gentleman, debating on facts, conceding points where appropriate, and never reverting to personal attacks or even innuendo. He isn’t interested in wars of us/them and sees mixes of good and bad with clear eyes. My hat is off to you, Joerg.
4 Likes
Look, I’m sorry if you don’t like people being called out as fanboys - they exist whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. What’s more, they are leading people into purchasing a game that is dubious to say the least - if you want them to have free reign and push their product so others can end up being victims without correct information then you are just as much a part of the problem.