With a publisher, projects like I:B and SC could not exist.
Publishers can bring either good or bad things to the table - like democracy.
I suppose a better analogy would be ability to ride a bike without training wheels - the training wheels in this case being a publisher. If someone keeps falling off their bike time and time and time again, then they have proven they are not capable and need training wheels. This appears to be very much the case for CR.
You could not choose worst analogy 
Your analogy is only available on Teletubiesâ world. But It is a good idea for an advertising 
Donât worry, we are only here to help you ride this bike. Signed The World Company 
The maker of Teletubies would do a better job on developing SC than CR. 
1 Like
A procedural Teletubbies game would be fascinating to see. I guess NMS isnât far off that 
2 Likes
the sun with its baby face would be technically difficult⌠when you actually watched an episode you know it only could be adpted in a horror genre
4 Likes
Interesting statement. Maybe thats one of the reasons why there is such a controversial discussion ongoing between SC, ED and I:BS (just to name a few). I can totally understand that statement, and looking at gameplay that focuses on spacecombat Iâd totally agree (so yeah for example in combination with I:BS). However looking at a game that focuses on exploration for example, and throwing in my personal taste, I would disagree.
I think ED is a very good example. Its main focus is exploration and the fascination of travelling between stars and systems (reaching the galaxy center at some point), and a lot of gameplay happens to reach a star/planet/etc via FSD, sitting in your cockpit. While its fascinating first (we all love the thought of travelling in space dont we?), you soon get used to the travelling part. One of the flaws of ED is IMHO that that the traveling experience is not filled with other gameplay other than⌠travelling. Yeah you can scan a bit or check your HUD while still keeping the spaceship centered to its target and speed, thats it. It would have been cool if this travell part which takes a lot of time in this game would have been filled with other elements (e.g. optimize/check/stack your cargo, check the ship for damages physically, go to different segements of the ship to study stations, systems, etc. etc.). Letting your ship go travelling while you do other things. Additionally, IMHO it feels much more immersive if you can see and feel your ship is really physically there (I got that feeling while playing ED with the oculus, however youâre still stuck in your cockpit - but it feels great). If youre just bound to a limited view range in your cockpit, it feels a bit like a fake (and depending on the implementation it sometimes is). And we havent talked about gameplay that happens on a stations, abandoned ships, etc.
IMHO all the above is not necessary for a game that focuses on combat - like I:BS. But for ED this is IMHO an important element, and I think also for SC (unless we all know what type of game it might become). Which might become, I hope, more an MMO than a simple spacecombat shooter - where you hopefully spend a lot of time walking in your ship or spending time on a spacestation or exploring a planet or left ship, or travelling between systems, rather than only combat. For me (personally) the FPS and EVA mode is as important as the cockpit gameplay, or even more.
So is a FPS mode more important than polished cockpit gameplay for gameplay such like in I:BS? Not at all! Yes. Would I prefer FPS and Multicrew-Ship gameplay even if it means compromises on quality of all game-elements for ED or SC? Absolutely! Its a must.
IMHO the question which elements are important and if various gameplay modes vs. polished single gameplay modes is to be priorized totally depeneds on each oneâs taste and the total gameplay of each game. Which might be one of the reasons why SC is so controverse discussed, as nobody knows what type of gameplay it will focus on (once or if it will ever appear) while each one has a totally different expectation of what SC could be.
ONE really imersive element for traveling would be navigation.
Like get your exact positioning through analysing star position.
I disagree for I:B.
I find this is a terrible mess to not be able to do it in I:B, because you canât totally understand scale without it. For example, what is your feeling about the size of the Hellion Corvette when you see it on the videos ? And when you land on a planet with it, only an EVA will make you really understand what is the scale of what you are seeing. Also, In terms of gameplay, to not be able to do ground-air defense on attackable locations, is a bit missing when you want to appreciate speed and size of space combat, almost on a game that permits you to see in real time space battles around a space station, from a ground point-of-viewâŚ
Iâm not interested in making FPS-Combat in I:B like in SC, itâs just that itâs a terrible mess to understand the scale, it struggles the enormous potential of feeling you can have on such landscapes, especially if VR is available on the final product. Itâs like volumetric clouds.
I know itâs difficult due to their context, but this details are for me not just options, they are a must, to help everybody feel the awesomeness of their work on procedural tech.
People donât care if you tell them it is true-to-scale, you have to feel it when you play it. If you canât guess the size of the Hellion naturally, itâs that somethingâs missing.
I hope EVA and Volumetric clouds will be the firsts patches when I:B will have succeeded
Just because itâs a must for you doesnât stop it being your opinion. The community here has been having arguments about the pros and cons of walking around for an entire decade and itâs a can of worms that doesnât need to be opened again; at least not while thereâs no real possibility to implement it half-decently, limited budget and all. 
Doesnât mean it wouldnât be neat to see one day, post 1.0 as youâve said, when the devs have the resources to pull it off.
3 Likes
didnât say that was not my opinion. The community here ? I am part of, and I can speak of what I want, regardless your opinion on the fact we need to reopen it or not.
1 Like
Scale can actually be determined by proper markings of doors, hatches, and windows. When I see a door, I assume it is somewhere between six and eight feet, depending on the setting. On a ship, having navy experience, I assume close to six or less.
A proper FPS experience is not just something that can be whipped up in a fortnight, though. Especially when it would have to be custom made, given that the engine is unique. Iâd bet on it being close to the last of any feature to be added because of this.
1 Like
Alright I wake up today and Iâve got 3 flags on just this thread. Some of you need to refrain from taking things so personally while others need to keep things civil people. Otherwise Iâm going to lock the thread because we donât have the time to constantly babysit it.
9 Likes
All of this ^^^ and it doesnât even have to be an anthropocentric object. It just has to be a recognisable juxtaposition between large and small volumes. Hence why âgoodâ greeble is so important.
1 Like
Personnaly I find nothing on videos I see to find out the scale precisely
For I:B? UmâŚthatâs because those are extremely WIP models with limited texture work to give the illusion of scale. The videos are not an indication of the final product. Not sure what you are expecting, but itâs not an easy thing to get right. A 300k budget doesnât help things much either.
1 Like
I understand
You can guess the size naturally, you compare it to an object of an already known size, like a shipping container, or a door⌠or a banana.
It doesnât have to be a human.
Failing that, thereâs the cockpit, which you know the size of the inside, so you can determine the outside volume from the exterior view
you search for it only if you want to know the scale. In real life you donât need to search. I didnât say we need something human. The cockpit is not visible from the main view. And for example, trees on the earth-like planet, how tall they are ? It could be 10m or 100m the two orders are relevant âŚ
This scale has to be felt effortless for the final product consumers. Volumetric clouds could help too for the scale of the planet, but it is not enough to determine the scale of the ship consumer are flying with.