Question....

[Flashwit]

This argument about what is Alpha and what isn't has been going on forever on RSI forums and pretty well the entire blogosphere. Lets look at what Alpha testing actually means..
...
...

The term alpha testing cannot be broadly applied in the same way to things as disparate as a video game and say...tax accounting software.

But look, it doesn't matter what you call it, the fact is that these games are incredibly different in terms of scope, features, and visual fidelity and comparing them in this sort of way is a bit foolish. Both games started crowdfunding around october/november 2012 yet Elite: Dangerous is 'final' and released while Star Citizen is nowhere close to that yet. Star Citizen has somewhere in the range of 2 more years in development before it's ready.

Feel free to draw comparisons, but I'm not going to be [CONCERN]ed about this particular aspect for at least a year.

 

[NKato]

I'm going to just say that he's just trying to point out the problems with texture rendering pop-in. I imagine it will be rectified as textures are optimized later on.

Elite: Dangerous had their graphics optimized early, in order to make the game more presentable. CIG on the other hand, is focusing more on the nuts and bolts of the game, and worrying about graphics optimization after they've completed the production of the majority of 3D and texture assets...which they aren't even halfway done with. They're still working on ArcCorp, Terra, and Nyx, in addition to running a few ships through the ship pipeline again.

 

[Huegpaynis]

Is that what he's talking about? I thought he was saying that stuff just wouldn't show up. Man, what a shitty thing to complain about this early.

 

[Overlord]

As soon as companies start sacrificing, it reminds me of Epic Games and the Gears of War series. I personally do not want to sacrifice because the problems you see now are going to be fixed in the future.

I think it is a question of balance: I'd rather have smooth, unbugged graphics then something super detailed and bugged like hell

The term alpha testing cannot be broadly applied in the same way to things as disparate as a video game and say...tax accounting software.

But look, it doesn't matter what you call it, the fact is that these games are incredibly different in terms of scope, features, and visual fidelity and comparing them in this sort of way is a bit foolish. Both games started crowdfunding around october/november 2012 yet Elite: Dangerous is 'final' and released while Star Citizen is nowhere close to that yet. Star Citizen has somewhere in the range of 2 more years in development before it's ready.

Feel free to draw comparisons, but I'm not going to be [CONCERN]ed about this particular aspect for at least a year.

The problem is you think they are 'incredibly' different when they are not. They are both PC games, they are based in space, they have spaceships, planets, stations, stars, moons, asteroids, trade, mining, combat and involve instancing and multiplayers. I think the foolishness here is denying similarities far outnumber differences. As for scope, yes Elite is much greater in scope, with over 4 billion star systems already in existence and with plans to land on planets and roam in stations, I think Elite just dwarfed SC, even if SC is completed in 2016. But hey if you think visual fidelity vs loading and rendering shouldn't be a consideration during production and that somehow it will all be magically fixed in two years, well, I prefer a more practical approach or at the very least temping expectations. Because if you think that the amazing graphics we see now is going to be in the final game or at least be there without rendering issues? Well, I got a bridge I would love to sell you.

 

[Overlord]

I'm going to just say that he's just trying to point out the problems with texture rendering pop-in. I imagine it will be rectified as textures are optimized later on.

Elite: Dangerous had their graphics optimized early, in order to make the game more presentable. CIG on the other hand, is focusing more on the nuts and bolts of the game, and worrying about graphics optimization after they've completed the production of the majority of 3D and texture assets...which they aren't even halfway done with. They're still working on ArcCorp, Terra, and Nyx, in addition to running a few ships through the ship pipeline again.

I think they also had their graphics optimized early in order to make the game more workable during development. Perhaps people are unaware but optimizing will require an IMMENSE amount of time and resources to complete and it always effects visual quality. So I think it was pretty smart of Elite to optimize early or at least show the game people are going to get rather than cross you fingers and hope optimization doesn't let contributors down 2 years later. Personally I would rather see optimization done early so we can see what we are getting, or at least a close approximation.

 

[rogesh]

The problem is you think they are 'incredibly' different when they are not. They are both PC games, they are based in space, they have spaceships, planets, stations, stars, moons, asteroids, trade, mining, combat and involve instancing and multiplayers.

well then bf3 or 4 is exactly the same as any call of duty.......
they ar both egoshooter. have singleplayer. have multiplayer. a big variety of guns. multible things for the guns (like scopes or laser).different classes . and so on.......
well....... heck no they aint the same. i played and still play both gameseries and i can tell you the feeling is different the graphics a different i could go on but i think i made it clear. its a different game although all the things they have in comon. if you use that logic you could through any game with the same genre together

true optimization is a big part of the alround package but keep in mind pc in lets say even a year from now let alone two are going to be stronger. so i think its ok if my now not that good pc (back when i built it it could handle any new game on ultra or high at least) isn't keeping up with sc.
but hey

 

[Overlord]

well then bf3 or 4 is exactly the same as any call of duty.......
they ar both egoshooter. have singleplayer. have multiplayer. a big variety of guns. multible things for the guns (like scopes or laser).different classes . and so on.......
well....... heck no they aint the same. i played and still play both gameseries and i can tell you the feeling is different the graphics a different i could go on but i think i made it clear. its a different game although all the things they have in comon. if you use that logic you could through any game with the same genre together

true optimization is a big part of the alround package but keep in mind pc in lets say even a year from now let alone two are going to be stronger. so i think its ok if my now not that good pc (back when i built it it could handle any new game on ultra or high at least) isn't keeping up with sc.
but hey

Yes, I suppose we could go back and forth all day regarding similarities and differences but the reason I play both SC and Elite is because of the similarities I mentioned. And people who like Space will be drawn to Elite, SC and EVE > it's the stuff that binds us. :) But you do have a good point regarding computers and they will definitely improve 2 years from now. I guess it really depends how far CIG is willing to push fidelity. They can push it to the extreme and be satisfied with a smaller, albeit more dedicated fan-base, or they can go the route of Elite and seek broader support with lower quality. Tough call but I would prefer the former to the later. But not at the cost of games being dropped during play and rendering issues.

 

[CaptainHavoc]

al·ph·a
noun

1. a long-haired domesticated South American mammal related to the llama.

 

[rogesh]

yes i agree i will check out elite myself still though, i would say its in an pre alpha state so it doesn't surprise me that there are such problems and i believe they are already working on in ;)

 

[CrashMan054]

Yes, I suppose we could go back and forth all day regarding similarities and differences but the reason I play both SC and Elite is because of the similarities I mentioned. And people who like Space will be drawn to Elite, SC and EVE > it's the stuff that binds us. :) But you do have a good point regarding computers and they will definitely improve 2 years from now. I guess it really depends how far CIG is willing to push fidelity. They can push it to the extreme and be satisfied with a smaller, albeit more dedicated fan-base, or they can go the route of Elite and seek broader support with lower quality. Tough call but I would prefer the former to the later. But not at the cost of games being dropped during play and rendering issues.

Just because they push the envelope doesn't mean they won't have an option to turn the fluff down so people without 3K to spend on a PC can play. I think that while they're certainly invested in making an incredible looking game, they realize that if nobody can run it, they won't make much money off it.

 

[Flashwit]

Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but the fact that you equate "E:D has 4 billion star systems" to it being broader in scope than Star Citizen makes me think that you're not fully qualified to talk about software development. 4 billion star systems means nothing when they're all procedurally generated. When I'm talking about scope, I'm talking about breadth of features that need code behind them, as well as the hand made assets to go along with those features. Star Citizen's feature scope is so far beyond E:D, which is one of the reasons why the development time is so much longer to get the full PU out.

My job is software development, this is what I do, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. I assure you, at the point they are in the development process, worrying about render issues is just...I don't know, it's so minor. It's like looking at a vehicle that's currently just a metal frame with a hood and two fenders and saying that the paint scheme is all wrong on the hood.

I don't really know what else to say on the matter. I just strongly think that this is a really misguided concern.

 

[Overlord]

Just because they push the envelope doesn't mean they won't have an option to turn the fluff down so people without 3K to spend on a PC can play. I think that while they're certainly invested in making an incredible looking game, they realize that if nobody can run it, they won't make much money off it.

Yeah, good point. But I am noticing that rending is even a problem for those of us with good computers turned on high. And of course optimization will turn down quality a notch or two and no computer will be able to recapture the kind of quality we see now.

 

[Overlord]

Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but the fact that you equate "E:D has 4 billion star systems" to it being broader in scope than Star Citizen makes me think that you're not fully qualified to talk about software development. 4 billion star systems means nothing when they're all procedurally generated. When I'm talking about scope, I'm talking about breadth of features that need code behind them, as well as the hand made assets to go along with those features. Star Citizen's feature scope is so far beyond E:D, which is one of the reasons why the development time is so much longer to get the full PU out.

My job is software development, this is what I do, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about. I assure you, at the point they are in the development process, worrying about render issues is just...I don't know, it's so minor. It's like looking at a vehicle that's currently just a metal frame with a hood and two fenders and saying that the paint scheme is all wrong on the hood.

I don't really know what else to say on the matter. I just strongly think that this is a really misguided concern.

The fact that you think so little of procedural generation leads me to conclude you are talking out of your hat. And you should remember that everyone here is not a software developer, in fact most aren't. So when you talk about the scope of a game it means different things to different people. If you want to say scope is how much work goes into assets, then fine. But as a gamer I look at the scope as a matter of size and ability to move from place to place and clearly Elite has far more scope with a universe of over 400 billion star systems. And if you think procedural means 'nothing' - I got news for you, it's the future of gaming so get use to it. In fact, I have to wonder how qualified any software developer is with such an outlook regarding procedural. Even Star Citizen is going to use procedural.

As for your car/paint analogy I think it is more like the a vehicle that's currently just a metal frame with a hood and two finders but for some reason the frame, hood and two fenders flutter in and out off existence. I think that is concern, don't you?

 

[NKato]

The fact that you think so little of procedural generation leads me to conclude you are talking out of your hat. And you should remember that everyone here is not a software developer, in fact most aren't. So when you talk about the scope of a game it means different things to different people. If you want to say scope is how much work goes into assets, then fine. But as a gamer I look at the scope as a matter of size and ability to move from place to place and clearly Elite has far more scope with a universe of over 400 billion star systems. And if you think procedural means 'nothing' - I got news for you, it's the future of gaming so get use to it. In fact, I have to wonder how qualified any software developer is with such an outlook regarding procedural. Even Star Citizen is going to use procedural.

As for your car/paint analogy I think it is more like the a vehicle that's currently just a metal frame with a hood and two finders but for some reason the frame, hood and two fenders flutter in and out off existence. I think that is concern, don't you?

At the moment, Procedural Generation is being used to produce basic builds that would be handcrafted after the initial generation.

I wouldn't sweat the graphics issue too much right now, Overlord. As we get into late 2015 and early 2016, they will do optimization passes on the assets. We'll see how it works out.

 

[CrashMan054]

At the moment, Procedural Generation is being used to produce basic builds that would be handcrafted after the initial generation.

I wouldn't sweat the graphics issue too much right now, Overlord. As we get into late 2015 and early 2016, they will do optimization passes on the assets. We'll see how it works out.

"We'll see how this works out."

That's the answer to most questions in SC. Keep in mind that the game is barely to a playable point(often not so, thanks new patch!). Just stare at a Cutlass for at least 2 hours a day and you'll be fine.

 

[Overlord]

"We'll see how this works out."

That's the answer to most questions in SC. Keep in mind that the game is barely to a playable point(often not so, thanks new patch!). Just stare at a Cutlass for at least 2 hours a day and you'll be fine.

Yeah, it does get pretty frustrating sometimes. Can't even be bothered with it now to be honest. Been two years and we have some pretty amazing stuff but not really playable. Sure they will eventually get it together but I really don't think we know what the end product will be despite the hype. Lets support CIG but not take everything they say as a given or an absolute, or gospel as some tend to do, especially when this has never been done before. And sometimes it is even a step backwards. But I suppose moving forward sometimes requires moving backward. So we shall see. But if the shit hits the fan, I'll probably end up laughing at all those crying over spilt graphics.

 

[rogesh]

NO CIG's words are my bible and what chris says is LAW i'll never expect less XP

i agree with you we will se how the game will turn out and if even by launch everything thats been promised will be in the game :D
i wish that sc where already done and out :O