So he did. So 2000km diameter planets, the same question. Seems odd to have so much realism elsewhere then toss it out the airlock with the planets.
Presumably they will at least add in some variation, in that some will be small and others be even smaller?
actually its diameter, I read radius in pupil to planet trailer in star citizen, my mistake.
Ah! So I was right by accident. Carry on. 
Youâre almost at Pluto sizes! Theyâre close! 1000km diameter beats out Ceres as well I thinkâŚalthough Iâm assuming SC planets also have atmospheres so that differs. I donât think we actually know what the smallest a body can be while still holding a significant atmosphere. Pluto has an atmosphere of 1ish pascal which is basically a vacuumâŚbut itâs there!
Titan isnât much bigger to be fair and has an atmosphere.
Totally forgot about Titan! Shame on me, one of my favorite bodies in the solar system.
5000km diameter is a bit bigger though, but with it comes a thick atmosphere. 1.45 atm (145kPa) at SL!
If their lore means that Kerbal are playable, Iâm ready to forgive many thingsâŚ
Itâs kind of amazing really considering its size to our Moon.
EDIT: Linked to a smaller image. Hadnât noticed it was nearly 3MB in size! Soz!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=diameter+of+the+earth
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=diameter+of+the+moon
*giggles*
HAHAHAHA
Pics or it didnât happen. Frankly, given PG tech is all the rage these days if they could pull off these feats they should be shouting about it.
How many more years will that add to development, or is this âgameplayâ going to end up being fairly shallow (pardon the pun)
No, itâs justifiable scepticism against eternal optimists who have thrown all their money at the promise of the moon on a stick.
I canât tell really, because the emails CIG/RSI/whatever send out every week or so are practically useless.
But Iâd argue itâs still nowhere near as good for a space game as an engine that has been built from the ground up with those challenges in mind. Iâd be curious to see what the engineâs codebase looks like now, because I bet itâll be a massive trainwreck.
Youâre putting an awful lot of effort into defending SC though.
But SC had money and a dream, and then the dream changed and needed more money. And then the dream changed and they needed more money, etc.
This is fundamentally untrue. SC would have been built even if the KS failed, which was what gave them the ability to take risks on promoting it early on. It also helps that CR is pretty good when it comes to selling a dream, a trait he shares with Peter Molyneux.
On the other hand, INS couldnât afford to not make the KS work, which meant not over-promising. Personally, I think INS have been a bit too cautious when it came to their KS marketing (which is unsurprising, because none of the INS team appear to have that natural marketing talent). But the quickest way to turn off an audience is to consistently ship low quality software that is buggy and unplayable. You can release rough around the edges in the KS/Early Access phase, but it should still at least be playable.
But that was literally an engine demo for the PG tech and seamless landing. I donât think it had any networking stack at that time, and if Flavien had rushed it he would have had to use the fairly flaky ICP netcode. It might have worked as a single-player prototype, but wouldnât have had much to hold peopleâs attention. Also, Kickstarter wasnât really that well known then.
Ideally, you need either a product or a brand to hype. INS didnât have the latter, and having the former means you have to have a working (or near working) product.
INS plan to do a marketing drive nearer to Alpha release. At that point, INS will be iterating heavily on gameplay rather than that the engine, and there will be more to interest people about the game
[quote=âTopperfalkon, post:543, topic:136â]
But that was literally an engine demo for the PG tech and seamless landing. I donât think it had any networking stack at that time, and if Flavien had rushed it he would have had to use the fairly flaky ICP netcode. It might have worked as a single-player prototype, but wouldnât have had much to hold peopleâs attention. Also, Kickstarter wasnât really that well known then.[/quote]
This.
I think people quickly forget that before 2012/2013 ( Star Citizen KS era ), no video game Kickstarter had reached the millions. Most of them at that time were in the sub $100K range.
( Interestingly, Battlescape isnât mentionned on that page, even though more recent Kickstarters are ).
In fact it you look at pre-2012 era, no video game Kickstarter ever reached $300K. We only started to see projects reach hundreds of thousands to half-a-million in mid-2012. And keep in mind the vast majority of those were surfing on the nostalgia wave with remakes or old famous names. Considering I left my job in early 2013 to work full time on our KS, I donât think we could have done anything earlier. The stars werenât aligned yet.
Agreed with every word you posted. Whatâs more, I would rather invest my time and money in a seamless game focused on getting it right the first time instead of a million rewrites of the backend. The results are plain to see in the latest patch: no bugs, no lag and real life size planets you can land on - with atmosphere mechanics! Whatâs more MANY more players will be able to play than SC, which appears to be shrinking more and more with each passing year/s. As for financing, the DEVs are absolutely heading in the right direction and Alpha, not Star Citizen eternal bug infested Alpha but actual smooth consistent gameplay, is the time to promote.
It still is too soon to tell, and will be for a few more years, but honestly in my opinion you guys are so far a success. Development is coming along nicely. There are zero sketchy things(that I can tell) happening updates are being delivered and I donât even notice the delays. This is how a KS should be ran and you guys are doing it right. Once Alpha/Beta comes along and people inevitably ask, âHow are the devs? How much transparency is there in development and upcoming updates? Where are the empty promises?â We can truthfully say that they are fantastic and keep to their word. There are no empty promises and have delivered everything and hopefully more due to their own style of setting the bar âlowâ.
Once we can have some real objective based gameplay I think this game will begin to market itself through community content and the refreshing breath of air that is developers who work with and listen to their community.
Although I as some others too would like to see a bigger planet screenshot to underline this, I tend to agree. Even with this relative small size theyâve overcome the precision limit (which shouldnt be really there anymore due to their refactoring to double precision), and depending on how they create the terrain planes/sphere and with a good LOD implemented they should be able to push the diameter further without bigger issues. Would love to see some details which LOD strategies theyâve implemented and how t hey create the planets meshes.
Think so too, following the dev logs theyâve reworked or replaced certain crucial parts of the engine. I think should be good for their space game approach with a heavy FPS part included and focusing on gameplay in a smaller area. However I also think its good that other games such like I:BS went a totally different road.
But yes, after years of customizing the engine and replacing the netcode part, new lighting and rendering, and moving to double precision, you hardly shouldnt compare it to the original engine (at least not without having the insights on their code).
For me Release 2.7 will be the crucial relase to see how they come along.
Also agree with the rest of your post on SC - besides the last chapter about I:BS. I would also loved to see an earlier kickstarter call or TQFE done, but the current approach is still fine with me - hard to tell how theyâve succeed years before where the space game hype wasnt there.
This is all getting silly. These engines are so far apart itâs 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 thatâs fineâŚbut comparing the two is a childish endeavor and smacks of fanboy trolling.
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.
Or procedurally generated screenshots. 
Those are the smallest moons Iâve ever seen.
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.
I think we should stay polite, shouldnt we? Literaly insulting other forum members with different opinions personally is not that kind of conversation style Iâve 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 itâll still be possible to do this here in a normal way. 
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. Whatâs more, you donât 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 itâs all about Procedural Rending, then be my guest. Here at least, unlike SC, IBS doesnât ban people for their opinions - even ones that appear to have an ulterior motive.