Support NeoGAF

[staticneuron]

You're aware the Hull E is basically an org level transport right? It's totally impractical from a standard "merchant" standpoint. Beyond that, be careful with the mentality of moving to larger and larger ships at the expense of the smaller ones. You still want something that'll be cost effective to use and turn a profit on your own.

Yeah from what I understood it is large and slow moving. But I get the impression that means no jump while carrying a load. I wonder if quantum travel is a go though because that seems like going from one system to another would either take forever or be impossible.

 

[jaaz]

Question for the CCU gurus. Let's say I have an Aquila and two (2) separate CCUs from the Aquila to say, a Reclaimer and a Crucible, because I couldn't decide which one I wanted to upgrade to. If I apply the Aquila to Reclaimer CCU, what happens to the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Does it just sit there in my account where I could melt it for store credit?

And let's say I regret the decision, would there be any way to reverse everything so that I could instead apply the CCU from the Aquila to the Crucible? For example, by initiating a buy-back of the Aquila and then applying the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Would that work?

Thanks.

 

[Zalusithix]

Yeah from what I understood it is large and slow moving. But I get the impression that means no jump while carrying a load. I wonder if quantum travel is a go though because that seems like going from one system to another would either take forever or be impossible.

It'll jump. There'd be no point to a transport that couldn't. It'll only be capable of using the largest jump points though. "Large" doesn't begin to describe the E. The thing's cargo section is as big as an entire Idris. Filling it will be exceedingly expensive even with basic commodities. Then you have the job of protecting the verse's largest piñata with a "please raid me" sign plastered all over it while en-route.

Edit:

Question for the CCU gurus. Let's say I have an Aquila and two (2) separate CCUs from the Aquila to say, a Reclaimer and a Crucible, because I couldn't decide which one I wanted to upgrade to. If I apply the Aquila to Reclaimer CCU, what happens to the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Does it just sit there in my account where I could melt it for store credit?

And let's say I regret the decision, would there be any way to reverse everything so that I could instead apply the CCU from the Aquila to the Crucible? For example, by initiating a buy-back of the Aquila and then applying the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Would that work?

Thanks.

Unused CCUs just sit there until used or melted. In the case of melting, they sit in the buy back queue.

You can't revert. What you can do is get a CCU from the Aquila to a Reclaimer, and a CCU from a Reclaimer to a Crucible for $0. Then even add a Crucible to Reclaimer to flip back if you so desire.

Edit 2: You could technically melt the upgraded Aquila and buy it back like you said, but that'd be a waste of a buyback token IMO compared to the above solution.

 

[staticneuron]

It'll jump. There'd be no point to a transport that couldn't. It'll only be capable of using the largest jump points though. "Large" doesn't begin to describe the E. The thing's cargo section is as big as an entire Idris. Filling it will be exceedingly expensive even with basic commodities. Then you have the job of protecting the verse's largest piñata with a "please raid me" sign plastered all over it while en-route.

Good point. I really feel they need to flesh out the concept of jump points more. Is large a catch all from everything 100m and up? Is there a Jump point only designated for capital ships? Death star sized jump points?

Question for the CCU gurus. Let's say I have an Aquila and two (2) separate CCUs from the Aquila to say, a Reclaimer and a Crucible, because I couldn't decide which one I wanted to upgrade to. If I apply the Aquila to Reclaimer CCU, what happens to the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Does it just sit there in my account where I could melt it for store credit?

And let's say I regret the decision, would there be any way to reverse everything so that I could instead apply the CCU from the Aquila to the Crucible? For example, by initiating a buy-back of the Aquila and then applying the Aquila to Crucible CCU? Would that work?

Thanks.

Zalusithix covered everything but the more expensive option is to buy another Aquila then CCU it to Crucible. Both the Reclaimer and Crucible are harder to come across while Aquila is sold on the regular.

 

[Besthelboy]

Over 7 million in funding this month, apparently the second best month in funding (the best being in Nov 2013), and the best day in funding.

Nice to see there's still a huge amount of enthusiasm from old and new backers for this game, despite some of the doom and gloom from a subset, CIG is still as successful as ever.

--

@ Sean, your AtV section was great, those feedback sheets are incredibly long! I'm always impressed by the tech and the level of quality of everything that goes into the game.

 

[Zabojnik]

Over 7 million in funding this month, apparently the second best month in funding (the best being in Nov 2013), and the best day in funding.

Nice to see there's still a huge amount of enthusiasm from old and new backers for this game, despite some of the doom and gloom from a subset, CIG is still as successful as ever.

Burny be like ...

Spoiler

<3 Burny

 

[Raticus79]

Upgraded my Freelancer to an Orion and a Gladius War-Bond to a Genesis. Debating upgrading my Vanguard to a Hull-E and going full merchant.

I contemplated the banu but our org has quite a few it seems.

For day-to-day solo gameplay I'd stick with a hull C or maybe merchantman. The more the merrier as far as those go. Doing anything with the E is going to be fairly involved.

 

[Rommel]

For day-to-day solo gameplay I'd stick with a hull C or maybe merchantman. The more the merrier as far as those go. Doing anything with the E is going to be fairly involved.

Actually went that route. Picked up a Banu Merchantman. Bought the warbond Avenger and CCU'd to the merchantman. Got LTI and got a $10 discount on the MM.

 

[CyberPunked]

Over 7 million in funding this month, apparently the second best month in funding (the best being in Nov 2013), and the best day in funding.

Nice to see there's still a huge amount of enthusiasm from old and new backers for this game, despite some of the doom and gloom from a subset, CIG is still as successful as ever.

--

@ Sean, your AtV section was great, those feedback sheets are incredibly long! I'm always impressed by the tech and the level of quality of everything that goes into the game.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Over 7 million in funding this month, apparently the second best month in funding (the best being in Nov 2013), and the best day in funding.

Nice to see there's still a huge amount of enthusiasm from old and new backers for this game, despite some of the doom and gloom from a subset, CIG is still as successful as ever.

I wonder now what is the point for them to release anything. ;P

 

[iHaunter]

UEE Exploration package was pretty good!

Terrapin, Carrack, Dragonfly, all LTI with Gamepackage AND SQ42.

I like it because I no longer have to waste money on Aurora package, not spending money on something I don't want is nice.

That and an LTI Orion to round things oot.

 

[Burny]

Spoiler

<3 Burny

Attention back to theory crafting ships, space shooter bypropduct has been demonstrated, funding secured, nobody asks after Squadron 42 demo that missed Citizen on by a hair's width anymore.

All good in Star Citizen land, isn't it? ;-p


Meanwhile, I'm mostly happy that Hello Games has given a sign of life. NMS has too much potential to end up underwhelming and dead. So does SC, more power to those throwing money after Chris Roberts then!

 

[Zabojnik]

Attention back to theory crafting ships, space shooter bypropduct has been demonstrated, funding secured, nobody asks after Squadron 42 demo that missed Citizen on by a hair's width anymore.

All good in Star Citizen land, isn't it? ;-p

Hopefully they'll showcase it during the Xmas livestream. but if not ... :shrug:

Sean, give us a sign. If you don't post in the next hour, I'm going to assume we're getting it.

 

[chifanpoe]

For day-to-day solo gameplay I'd stick with a hull C or maybe merchantman. The more the merrier as far as those go. Doing anything with the E is going to be fairly involved.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the BMM when it gets made. They either way way nurf its stats to keep it in the $300 range or build it like listed along with Alien boost and it goes $500+. The 8 crew requirement worries me a little on the solo play part, but if in safe space I would assume it be ok.

I have a Hull C and it for solo goods moving right now. We shall see how they pan out.

 

[Zalusithix]

Hopefully they'll showcase it during the Xmas livestream. but if not ... :shrug:

Yeah, it's totally a nonissue for me personally. Would be nice, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm far more concerned with the interaction of all the parts on the scale needed for the PU than I am of when they'll demo a mission from the SQ42. That battle begins in 2017.

 

[Raticus79]

theory crafting ships

(JPEG optimization)

By the way, there's a thread going about the lack of a timeline for the SQ42 demo here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitize...us_why_is_there_only_a_development_timetable/

It will be interesting to see how they handle the BMM when it gets made. They either way way nurf its stats to keep it in the $300 range or build it like listed along with Alien boost and it goes $500+. The 8 crew requirement worries me a little on the solo play part, but if in safe space I would assume it be ok.

I have a Hull C and it for solo goods moving right now. We shall see how they pan out.

I'm leaning toward the price bump. I'm looking at those 8 crew as a maximum, not really a requirement. Considering the Hull C gets away with 3, maybe the other 5 would be merchants in the trade area with guns under the counter.

I'm surprised the Hull E only lists 5.

Yeah, it's totally a nonissue for me personally. Would be nice, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I'm far more concerned with the interaction of all the parts on the scale needed for the PU than I am of when they'll demo a mission from the SQ42. That battle begins in 2017.

Yeah, the SQ42 demo will be great for publicity and racking up base game preorders, but the multiplayer scaling in 3.0 is what really matters as far as the MMO goes.

 

[Zalusithix]

Yeah, the SQ42 demo will be great for publicity and racking up base game preorders, but the multiplayer scaling in 3.0 is what really matters as far as the MMO goes.

And the MMO is what drives the funding by a large margin. I doubt many of the big backers are doing so for SQ42 at this point.

 

[jaaz]

I'm looking forward to the anniversary sale ending. Spent much more than I intended, as usual.

Having researched so many ships this week, I think the toughest challenge for CIG at launch and even before is balancing gameplay for all of these ships. I remember in the days of WoW how difficult it was for Blizzard to balance just a handful of classes because of the inevitable overlap that occurred between certain classes. If you equate classes to ships--and I think to certain extent you can equate them--there are a good number of ships which capabilities overlap with others. How exactly, for example, do you make a multi-crew Carrack a better explorer than an Aquila, the Terrapin a better explorer than a DUR, etc. And that's not to mention the modularity of some ships where you can make, say, an 890 Jump a capable explorer. And balancing is an going to be an issue for practically all professions, not just exploring. It gives me a headache just to think about it. Maybe something simple like fuel and distance will be the primary limiting factor (the easiest are probably cargo ships, where cargo space would seem to be the primary balance mechanic).

 

[SeanNoonan]

Sean, give us a sign. If you don't post in the next hour, I'm going to assume we're getting it.

I'm all in on Star Marine these days. You won't get anything else from me

 

[Burny]

(JPEG optimization)

Mh...

I'm leaning toward the price bump. I'm looking at those 8 crew as a maximum, not really a requirement. Considering the Hull C gets away with 3, maybe the other 5 would be merchants in the trade area with guns under the counter.

I'm surprised the Hull E only lists 5.

Whatever you want to call it. ;-) I feel it's an utter waste of time, before they actually get round to even implement so much as the most basic ship related mechanics, e.g. cargo, exploration (whatever that entails in SC), mining and actual multicrew game mechanics other than getting dizzy in turrets and not having to give a damn about the g-forces the ship's pilot seems to be subject to, with the occasional more or less random ejection into space, painfully twitchy/glitchy first person movement through the narrow ship spaces, body warping and whatever great features the tech demos have nowadays.

 

[Zalusithix]

Mh...



Whatever you want to call it. ;-) I feel it's an utter waste of time, before they actually get round to even implement so much as the most basic ship related mechanics, e.g. cargo, exploration (whatever that entails in SC), mining and actual multicrew game mechanics other than getting dizzy in turrets and not having to give a damn about the g-forces the ship's pilot seems to be subject to, with the occasional more or less random ejection into space, painfully twitchy/glitchy first person movement through the narrow ship spaces, body warping and whatever great features the tech demos have nowadays.

Games are wastes of time by their very nature. Speculation on ships and how everything relates is fun (although easily deadlocked by differences in opinion). I'm sure that's not the case when you're entirely disillusioned with the game, but for the rest of us, the sales and speculation are kind of guilty pleasures. =P

 

[Burny]

...but for the rest of us, the sales and speculation are kind of guilty pleasures. =P

So long as you can muster the energy to do it while keeping in mind that game development is unpredictable (as Star Citizen's believers are quick to point out to the delusioned critics). Meaning any speculative conclusion you may reach for yourself may be made redundant on a whim, once reality comes into contact with CIGs astronomic promises of how everything will work. At worst making your 400$ ship all but worthless in the eventual meta.

They're years away from even narrowing down the game balancing details required to make any of these ships work in the game's meta. I'd be a lot more intersted in when they plan to narrow those down, rather than how the meta will look like.

 

[Zalusithix]

So long as you can muster the energy to do it while keeping in mind that game development is unpredictable (as Star Citizen's believers are quick to point out to the delusioned critics). Meaning any speculative conclusion you may reach for yourself may be made redundant on a whim, once reality comes into contact with CIGs astronomic promises of how everything will work. At worst making your 400$ ship all but worthless in the eventual meta.

They're years away from even narrowing down the game balancing details required to make any of these ships work in the game's meta. I'd be a lot more intersted in when they plan to narrow those down, rather than how the meta will look like.

Of course the speculation could turn out to be wrong; that's why it's called speculation. Heck, even ships that are fairly well defined currently can undergo changes. That's on top of role balancing and the likes.

As for the $400 paperweight, with the CCU/melt system we are allowed a range of flexibility on changing our minds on ships. Should they turn out to be something less than what we imagined when implemented in alpha, we can simply migrate to something else. Even once the game is locked and that option disappears, ships will be able to be sold in universe which will recoup some, if not all, of the investment. Beyond that, I think most people that have gotten to the point of having $400+ ships have more than one. Fleet diversification is part of the whole ship speculation thing.

 

[Burny]

Fleet diversification is part of the whole ship speculation thing.

I'm at the point of scoffing even at the idea of a fleet, until I see more than two dozen players playing in the same space, without severe network/framerate issues.

 

[Zalusithix]

I'm at the point of scoffing even at the idea of a fleet, until I see more than two dozen players playing in the same space, without severe network/framerate issues.

I meant personal fleet in this case: diversification of held ships with a range of sizes and purposes so as to have flexibility.

As to in-game operations comprised of many ships, until the networking changes are live, that's obviously not going to happen. Even with the framerate problem solved though, there's still other issues to address in regards to scaling. That said, is there anything you're not scoffing at in regards to SC? =P

 

[Raticus79]

So long as you can muster the energy to do it while keeping in mind that game development is unpredictable (as Star Citizen's believers are quick to point out to the delusioned critics). Meaning any speculative conclusion you may reach for yourself may be made redundant on a whim, once reality comes into contact with CIGs astronomic promises of how everything will work. At worst making your 400$ ship all but worthless in the eventual meta.

They're years away from even narrowing down the game balancing details required to make any of these ships work in the game's meta. I'd be a lot more intersted in when they plan to narrow those down, rather than how the meta will look like.

I'm going in with the assumption that everything will eventually be outclassed via MMO power creep. There's a pretty good chance I won't get to play much anyway. The real metagame being played here is making sure the game exists in the first place.

 

[KKRT00]

EVE Online doesnt have power creep, so i dont except this to have it either.

 

[Zalusithix]

I'm going in with the assumption that everything will eventually be outclassed via MMO power creep. There's a pretty good chance I won't get to play much anyway. The real metagame being played here is making sure the game exists in the first place.

I don't think that'll necessarily be the case. For one, I think new ship production is going to scale way down post launch. They can get money for every new ship concept right now, but post launch that won't be the case. Creating a new ship from the ground up is expensive. Even remodeling an existing one in any extensive way isn't cheap. Perhaps they'll have semi regular refreshes with some minor cosmetic changes, but that's about all I can see being feasible on any scale. Besides, lore wise, some of these ships are supposed to be designs that are hundreds of years old and still in service. I don't think new ships that totally outclass their predecessors come out all too often.

If there's going to be power creep, I expect it'll largely be with the components, and those are universal (size restraints notwithstanding).

 

[Burny]

As to in-game operations comprised of many ships, until the networking changes are live, that's obviously not going to happen. Even with the framerate problem solved though, there's still other issues to address in regards to scaling. That said, is there anything you're not scoffing at in regards to SC? =P

Texture quality and ship design are pretty much flawless. But as long as there is no game (read: not broken tech demo) to enjoy them, they're worthless to me. Just like the theories of how diverse the ships will eventually be..

The real metagame being played here is making sure the game exists in the first place.

I'd be pretty happy if that was played more by asking CIG for roadmaps and binding them to those, e.g. by not keep throwing any spare income at Roberts. ;-) Otherwise we'll keep seeing Parkinson's law taking full effect. From there on... I'd be happy to see them sell actually usable digital items in the context of that game all they want. Btw. I'm talking about a roadmap to the 1.0 release, not one that barely covers the coming month. ;-)

 

[iHaunter]

Texture quality and ship design are pretty much flawless. But as long as there is no game (read: not broken tech demo) to enjoy them, they're worthless to me. Just like the theories of how diverse the ships will eventually be..



I'd be pretty happy if that was played more by asking CIG for roadmaps and binding them to those, e.g. by not keep throwing any spare income at Roberts. ;-) Otherwise we'll keep seeing Parkinson's law taking full effect. From there on... I'd be happy to see them sell actually usable digital items in the context of that game all they want. Btw. I'm talking about a roadmap to the 1.0 release, not one that barely covers the coming month. ;-)

So wait.

I don't get it.

Edit: You literally made a point about nothing.

Edit2: Re-reading it a few times all I'm getting from this is. WAAAAAAHHHH THEY'RE TAKING TOO LONG WAAAAAHHHHH! I mean it's game development. An entire studio was built from scratch with no pipe-lines or tech in place...What do you want? They've made incredible progress considering what they're doing was considered impossible? It still is...But they've silenced a lot of that. Like flying from space to planet without any loading screens.

 

[Danthrax]

;-p

;-)

;-)

Please stop winking and sticking your tongue out at me. I might get the wrong idea.

Spoiler

and they do nothing to soften your rhetoric

 

[Burny]

Please stop winking and sticking your tongue out at me. I might get the wrong idea.

Less stupid smileys, noted!

WAAAAAAHHHH THEY'RE TAKING TOO LONG WAAAAAHHHHH! I mean it's game development. An entire studio was built from scratch with no pipe-lines or tech in place...What do you want? They've made incredible progress considering what they're doing was considered impossible? It still is...

A defined roadmap that leads from the current tech demo state to a 1.0 release, a feature set that is supposed to be contained in the 1.0 release, honest and open communication about any delays to that roadmap and their reasons in advance of the delays (not begrudging admissions after an ETA has long passed).

That's... about it, really. And that's the absolute very least one ought to expect from people asking for funding money to realize a project.

 

[iHaunter]

Less stupid smileys, noted!



A defined roadmap that leads from the current tech demo state to a 1.0 release, a feature set that is supposed to be contained in the 1.0 release, honest and open communication about any delays to that roadmap and their reasons in advance of the delays (not begrudging admissions after an ETA has long passed).

That's... about it, really. And that's the absolute very least one ought to expect from people asking for funding money to realize a project.

ETAs cannot really exist in this type of game development though...They're not using an engine to make a game, they're making THE engine which is a very important distinction.

Blockers and issues can show up at any time. One thing that's starting to put a bad taste in my mouth currently is how salesmanie they're getting. Either they don't have enough funds or don't think they will before SC is complete. That kind of transparency is something I would like more of.

There's never been any delays on the "BUY" button has there...

 

[Anton Sugar]

What do you mean? There have been plenty of games that had a proprietary engine developed before/during game development.

 

[Outrun]

Edit2: Re-reading it a few times all I'm getting from this is. WAAAAAAHHHH THEY'RE TAKING TOO LONG WAAAAAHHHHH! I mean it's game development. An entire studio was built from scratch with no pipe-lines or tech in place...What do you want? They've made incredible progress considering what they're doing was considered impossible? It still is...But they've silenced a lot of that. Like flying from space to planet without any loading screens.

Surely this is not all you are getting?

People got upset because CIG need not meet the deadlines that they themselves set.

Now, they have redefined expectations and I think any new backers should understand that this development is a work of passion that has no end date.

Old backers need to adapt or request a refund if they no longer believe in this project.

 

[Zalusithix]

One thing that's starting to put a bad taste in my mouth currently is how salesmanie they're getting. Either they don't have enough funds or don't think they will before SC is complete. That kind of transparency is something I would like more of.

There's never been any delays on the "BUY" button has there...

They've always had sales, and the number of sales at this time of year is consistently higher. If you're referring to the warbond ship prices vs regular, then that's a mountain out of a molehill. Back in the day when we didn't have the auto-CCU system and melt/unmelt freedom that we do today, you were far more locked into spending more money or permanently losing access to what you had before. It's easier than ever to not have to spend a dime on new sales. To offset that they give some incentive to put new money in.

If you mean ship prices going up... Well, they've always maintained that they would. It's just that we're finally seeing that come into effect, and so far it's been contained to ships that have gotten much larger and/or were supposed to be rare. The system has rewarded those that pledged earlier in the cycle, and that's not new either. (See Idris-M.)

If you mean the MOF editions of ships from this last sale... They were silly, but at the same time, hardly important. Different skins, "improved" loadouts, and LTI thrown in. They were there for people that wanted to throw the extra money at them and nothing more. You could still get the plain old versions (with LTI via 85x upgrade) if you wanted to avoid the MOF skin/loadout tax.

As for the delays on the buy button? Yeah, there have been. Sales and ship concept sales have been delayed before. Sure the delays are insignificant compared to the PU updates, but then again we're talking about a webstore update. Not exactly the same level of complexity.

 

[chifanpoe]

November Town Hall, pretty good info in here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKH1B1p9TgM&feature=youtu.be

 

[jaaz]

The "Avocados" now have 2.6.0 in their hands for testing. Looks like CIG is on schedule so far.

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/359559/2-6-0-and-spectrum-closed-testing-update#latest

 

[UpDownLeftRight]

I'd be pretty happy if that was played more by asking CIG for roadmaps and binding them to those, e.g. by not keep throwing any spare income at Roberts. ;-) Otherwise we'll keep seeing Parkinson's law taking full effect. From there on... I'd be happy to see them sell actually usable digital items in the context of that game all they want. Btw. I'm talking about a roadmap to the 1.0 release, not one that barely covers the coming month. ;-)

Curious how you expect that to work. Bind them to it as in give them a goal and force them to release on that date regardless of how broken that build may be? That seems very counter productive.

 

[Raticus79]

Interesting read about the open source network layer project (libyojimbo) on GitHub that CIG backed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fgi94/behind_the_scenes_of_starnetwork10_found_some/

There's some detail on what it does (low latency secure connections, basically) and supporting info for continued coordination with CIG. The OP thinks they're in the final steps of it now and things look good for its role in 3.0.

Come to think of it, this sheds a bit more light on the "serialized variable" items under Network on their roadmap.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

 

[tuxfool]

Interesting read about the open source network layer project (libyojimbo) on GitHub that CIG backed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/5fgi94/behind_the_scenes_of_starnetwork10_found_some/

There's some detail on what it does (low latency secure connections, basically) and supporting info for continued coordination with CIG. The OP thinks they're in the final steps of it now and things look good for its role in 3.0.

Come to think of it, this sheds a bit more light on the "serialized variable" items on their roadmap.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report

I think I linked the authors blog here before, but it is well worth a read.

http://gafferongames.com/

Also this GDC talk is also interesting:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022195/Physics-for-Game-Programmers-Networking

 

[Zabojnik]

That internet detective work. Guy should post on GAF. Maybe he already does.

D...dictator?

 

[Dictator93]

That internet detective work. Guy should post on GAF. Maybe he already does.

D...dictator?

Hah. Wasn't me!

 

[Dezeer]

I think I linked the authors blog here before, but it is well worth a read.

http://gafferongames.com/

Also this GDC talk is also interesting:

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022195/Physics-for-Game-Programmers-Networking

The topic seemed familiar so I searched and You linked the Github page back in August:

https://github.com/networkprotocol/libyojimbo/blob/master/README.md

 

[Raticus79]

I took some time this week to try out some different Steam controller configurations getting ready for 2.6 on PTU. Settled on using the right pad as a friction-free trackball with "edge spin" on the outer ring, which turns it into kind of a hybrid analog joystick. It's handy for continuous following turns, which was something I had struggled with before. The gyro is for fine adjustments. Left analog stick is horizontal/vertical strafe, and I have throttle and roll on my pedals.

Pretty good test run:
https://youtu.be/bLlqKd53ldM
I'm still getting used to it and there are lots of times when I can't quite get it right, but when it comes together it works really well.

 

[chifanpoe]

I took some time this week to try out some different Steam controller configurations getting ready for 2.6 on PTU. Settled on using the right pad as a friction-free trackball with "edge spin" on the outer ring, which turns it into kind of a hybrid analog joystick. It's handy for continuous following turns, which was something I had struggled with before. The gyro is for fine adjustments. Left analog stick is horizontal/vertical strafe, and I have throttle and roll on my pedals.

Pretty good test run:
https://youtu.be/bLlqKd53ldM
I'm still getting used to it and there are lots of times when I can't quite get it right, but when it comes together it works really well.

Nice work, looking good!

 

[tuxfool]

Around the Verse 3.15 - UK.

https://youtu.be/bmv6iS5tFeA

 

[Bo Knows GAF]

Around the Verse 3.15 - UK.

https://youtu.be/bmv6iS5tFeA

Serious question, and I should preface this by saying I don't mean to be critical, but I'm genuinely curious as to why in the ATV and RTV episodes we are only shown areas and assets that we are already very familiar with. What I mean is more often than not we see areas like Olisar, Yela etc, etc. This includes the Gamescom footage as well where basically we're stuck in the Stanton system. Is this because Stanton is quite literally the only existing system at the moment or are other areas being developed that are just out of sight?

 

[Pomerlaw]

I'm pretty excited by the flight model changes!

 

[mercenar1e]

Serious question, and I should preface this by saying I don't mean to be critical, but I'm genuinely curious as to why in the ATV and RTV episodes we are only shown areas and assets that we are already very familiar with. What I mean is more often than not we see areas like Olisar, Yela etc, etc. This includes the Gamescom footage as well where basically we're stuck in the Stanton system. Is this because Stanton is quite literally the only existing system at the moment or are other areas being developed that are just out of sight?

That's because it's the only locations that are currently in the game