If you did make a purchase, it should be visible in “My RSI” or, if you made a pledge on ks, in your ks history.
Interesting video from the PTU 2.0 build:
The scale seems way off, maybe its because of the high speed, but the asteroids seem giant compared to the moon, they would probably have to orbit at insane speeds to keep an orbit, and because they are so huge they would attract each other.
They already said they don’t want to have true scale, but this is concerning, lets hope that this is just a test asset thingy.
that video looked terrible
least its early alpha
I agree that the scale look very off, the moon/planet or whatever it is looks very small and the belt felt really close to it as well, I mnean, the shadow around 2 min mark is MASSIVE on the “planet”.
Maybe it’s supposed to be a large asteroid rather than an actual planet?
Could also just be a small test setup to make sure things spawn correctly and such I guess.
That ‘planet/moon’ isn’t even as wide as the Sky-Crane 5 station is long. Weird.
8 Likes
I think it is meant to be small yes, but then it shouldn’t have an asteroid ring around it.
And it probably shouldn’t be round either.
I dunno, Ceres is pretty round
The minimum radius for a spherical rocky body is about 300km. Ceres is about 470km. This thing looks like it’s perhaps a couple km across.
Note that in an actual ring system, the rocks bump into each other and grind off pieces. The net result is a ring that is dominated by dust and gravel. I would assume that the older a ring system, the more it has broken down, but even a young system that has formed a ring would be chock full of dust and gravel.
The video shows a setting that looks like it would be fun for gameplay, but it’s nowhere near realistic.
Ceres is OVER NINETY times larger than it if that 8-10km diameter figure that’s been floating around is accurate tho. 
Well i watched 1-2 Star Citizen Alpha 2.0 Videos… and i have to say it is promising, however i don’t like how much you have to pay for this game. And it is a pay model where you will spent your money monthly i can promise you.
Well this morning i dreamed of partipicating eve again, but then i thought of the brunch of money i did put in this game…
But i still don’t think they give a prodecural planet stuff like I : B. Also i hate in SC the behaviour of rockets and the ego shooter style on stations. The bullets fly too fast, i fear an insta kill and relive behavior of some foolish 16 year old ego shooter crank gods like battlefield and such.
Fun bit of news, they’re about to go over the 100 million mark in their funding.
If they can hit 100,000,000, with some updated textures, updated gameplay, and refinement to the procedural planets we should be able to hit a million next year sometime…
God, I am just so curious to see what Infinity does after we get some gameplay, improved textures and more refinements to the engine to make it look more realistic.
2 Likes
To me personally Alpha 2.0 (well, the videos) showed that they are on a good way, maybe very good one. Things getting connected to each other, I was very worried that they wont be able to get all the modules together to one game. Now that we see that it really works I think they should be able to really deliver the vision of CR.
At least when they show how good the CryEngine will work with the double-precision conversion, if it does good, I am very confident in the project.
I dont want to compare SC and I:B, because, and I dont want to be harsh but, SC is IMHO a class of its own compared to other spacegames, also I:B. People tend to blame SC always due to their ships, but those assets are of impressive quality and they belong into a AAA game. They target to different design and gameplay, so what… I want both, an AAA class SC game and a good I:B one. I already impressed by the Arena Commander 1.x module, things havent changed yet.
For sure I look forward to I:B, but I do more for SC. Things might change when we talk about I: TQFE, but until then my priority is set. But I dont see this as a competetion, both games profit from each one.
1 Like
I don’t see it that way at all.
Technology wise they are the least impressive.
Sure gameplay wise and movie cutscenes wise they have big plans.
And it’s hard to deny they put a lot of details in their assets. Nothing other games haven’t done before as well though.
But they made the absolute worst decision engine wise. An fps engine for a space sim? really? Which means their game will always be hindered by that.
Pretty interesting how much opinions can get divided here. Sure they set on a given graphicsengine and a whole new engine is a different story, but when I look at the whole package of (a customized) engine, assets (and thats not only the creation process but also bind them effective into the engine, have good working collision boxes outside and inside and all that stuff), gameplay and graphics/soundeffects, I’d still call SC the winner, also technology wise.
Looking at SC, its a space sim yes, but it is also not less than a first person game with its multicrew ships / inside ship walking, outside ship space walks or spacestation/planetside elements. I guess Chris Roberts had these gameplay elements in mind when he picked up the cryengine, which in this case I think absolutely makes sense. Besides I think also the space visuals benefit a lot from the cryengines effects, with the space scenes looking a lot more cinematic with its reflections and everything than I:B (which is very clean and bald compared) - which is fair, because there went a lot less development time into I:B than into the now third iteration of the cryengine.
In the end I guess the cryengine is so much customized that we hardly can tell it cryengine 3.x for FPS anymore.
At which point exactly do you mean the cryengine is lacking for a spacegame with SCs gameplay (space/multicrew/ship walk), especially as they extended the native vector classes to double precision now? Where is it still “hindering” from a programmers point of view when it comes to a spacegame?
2 Likes
Can we just agree that there are people who are convinced that it would’ve been the better choice to use another engine (or create a new one) for SC and move on?
It’s a moot point, as pros will always keep defending the engine, whereas cons will always find new ways to criticize it. People don’t have to like that CR chose CE for SC, but he did anyway, yolo style.
It’s just meant as friendly arguments imo. No harm in discussing things we disagree on as long as we keep respecting each other.
There will always be naysayers for every choice. But I rememeber that most of these people know absolutely nothing about game engine development. They chose Cryengine for a reason.
And you know what, SC is basically a space FPS that has star ships instead of ground/air vehicles as in other FPS games. Seems like Cryengine is already adept at that kind of gameplay, no need to re-invent the wheel.
Well, if you look at it as an fps game with vehicles then yes it’s suitable for that. Just don’t expect the kind of simulation of space that you get in games like Infinity, Elite, Limit Theory and No Mans Sky.