May I suggest: don't feed the Derek. 😉

Derek did have some good points and I agree with most everyone here where I will just wait until they tell me its done. I just don't SC to become an Infinity: Quest for Earth type of game. I truly hope Mr. Roberts can create 'the game' to rule them all and I will gladly throw money at CIG. i bought into the kickstarter the day it came out just because I absolutely loved playing all the WC, Privateer, Freelancer and Starlancer games. I just want to make sure we get what we initially pay for before we have to buy expansions and or DLC like most companies do today.

I know a game like this brings out the bashers too because it has been so successful and is only in alpha, has to be the best early access to any game that i have seen yet and they did it all by themselves with no help from Steam or the other digital media websites. I hope we have something really good to play around Xmas while we wait for the rest.

It's funny, much of the negative press about SC lately has coincided with my feeling particularly impressed with what they have accomplished so far.  Let's for the sake of argument assume the next pre-alpha module comes out as planned.  They will have done the following:

1) Fully simulated flight physics.  Every spaceship is a full-blown rigid body simulation.  As far as I know, this has never been done for spaceships in games.  This has been in the game since the very first pre-alpha, and in the game NOW.

2) Damage model.  In part, this comes with the above.  If you lose power to a thruster, the loss in maneuverability will be exactly what it ought to be.  Individual ship systems can fail, and even if under the hood there is some concept of overall ship hitpoints, it's certainly not obvious.  Especially as of 1.1.5 the damage model seems damned impressive, and far more detailed than that of any other game that I can think of.  This is in the game NOW.   

3) A system for translating control input into actual thruster output.  In light of the full simulation mentioned above, this is absolutely necessary.  No other game has to do this.  Not only did they create a system which maps all of your inputs from mouse/keyboard, joystick or control pad into thruster output to produce the desired result, but there are clever ways of adjusting how this is done.  By default, the program figures out for you what is needed to automatically zero translation and rotation, making your spaceship fly something like an aircraft.  You can turn off the zeroing of translation (decoupled), and you can even dictate whether you force excess translational momentum imparted from rotational thrust to be corrected for (comstab).  For joystick (and I think controller?) the program predicts your actions to some extent in order to provide parity with the mouse.  This is all in the game NOW.

4) A ship fitting system.  We don't have a ton of modules yet, but it is already apparent that much of the advertised intricacy of ship fitting is already there.  Certainly the mere availability of so many slots seems to offer more than the vast majority of similar games.  Some of this is in the game NOW.

5) Ships with unprecedented detail.  Seriously, look carefully at the ships in SC, and then take a look at the ships in any other game.  SC already upholds an unheard of standard of fidelity.  Every ship module has to have actual, physical slots on the ship.  The landing gear has to actually fit in the ship (no disappearing on retracting).  The thruster placement has to be such that it actually works.  Since there is a rigid-body simulation of every ship, there is no bullshitting the thruster placement (well a little, outputs can be adjusted to some extent).  Ships have to have actual cargo space.  Ships have to have a damn toilet.  How many polygons do you think the average small fighter has?  I think it's a lot.  Granted, there's a lot that isn't functional yet, but this sort of detail for quite a few ships is in the game NOW.

6) CryEngine's spatial vectors have been converted to double precision.  Granted, we have not yet seen the full benefit of this, as we have to wait for them to build some full-sized maps.  How good a job they did will then become apparent.  Regardless, this seems to me like a huge technical challenge.  I don't know much about CryEngine, but I know enough about programming to know that it's a lot more complicated than going through the source code and doing a find and replace for "float -> double".  This is implemented NOW, although, admittedly it won't be for a few months at the earliest that we truly see the benefits.

7) Walking in ships.  Walking in ships which are subject to a realistic rigid-body simulation.  That is, while your ship is using it's thrusters, getting shot at, whacking into asteroids, you walk around inside as if under the influence of some fantastical artificial gravity.  No other game has done this, no other upcoming game claims to try.  Granted, this isn't in the game yet, but they have given a fair amount of detail about how the grid system works, and it will be in the public builds very soon.  I will retract this point if it's not out by the end of the year.

8) FPS.  They've released a lot of detail and video on this.  In addition to all the stuff above, there is going to be an FPS with many of the features a modern FPS should have.  It's not out yet, but since they haven't lied to us yet (and with the aforementioned videos) there's no reason to doubt that it will be in the game very soon.  (They didn't lie about the initial release of Star Marine, they made it plenty clear that the dates were not set in stone.)  I of course will eat my words if it isn't out soon.

I don't know, that seems like a lot of stuff to me.  That seems like a lot of really difficult stuff that nobody else has ever done, and from a studio which didn't really exist in 2012.  Yes, their business model is highly dubious, I scoffed with the rest of them when that ridiculous racing module came out (and turned out to be among the things CIG spent their time and money on) and all of the core game mechanics still need significant tuning.  Still, I don't think the people who mock them or rant about vaporware are paying any attention.

 

 

   3) A system for translating control input into actual thruster output.  In light of the full simulation mentioned above, this is absolutely necessary.  No other game has to do this.  Not only did they create a system which maps all of your inputs from mouse/keyboard, joystick or control pad into thruster output to produce the desired result, but there are clever ways of adjusting how this is done.  By default, the program figures out for you what is needed to automatically zero translation and rotation, making your spaceship fly something like an aircraft.  You can turn off the zeroing of translation (decoupled), and you can even dictate whether you force excess translational momentum imparted from rotational thrust to be corrected for (comstab).  For joystick (and I think controller?) the program predicts your actions to some extent in order to provide parity with the mouse.  This is all in the game NOW.

 

I agree with what you said above but something is really bugging me about this game.

I really wish CIG would put alot more polish into the flight model. Right now if you use a joystick (or god forbid) a gamepad, people using a mouse and keyboard will slaughter you. They really need to counter this by giving joysticks and gamepads a buff when it comes to targeting or this game will just end up as a FPS shooter. Which would be fine if that is really what they want and if so they should just come out and say so and get it over and done with. It's even more strange though there are talks about branded HOTAS setups being banded about.

It's a funny thing, I really like flying around in AC with a gamepad. I can make the ship (a 300 series) dance about, slide, orbit around things, land even nice and smooth but when it actually comes to hitting anything,...well all I can say is barn doors don't have a worry if I am about! Using anything other than a mouse (at least for me) simply isn't accurate enough and gimbles are pretty much useless if you don't have Track IR or something similar to keep your gimbled guns on targets. Might as well stick with fixed bigger weapons. I still don't really destroy anything but at least the shots I might occasionally land on another ship by pure dumb luck will do more damage. It's rarely enough though and I am yet to claim my first multiplayer kill. In fact I withdrew from the leaderboard entirely. A total waste of time for me.

Perhaps it is me, perhaps I am just a rubbish pilot in this game? I would give this credence if this were the only space sim (or flight sim) I ever played, but it's not. I do much better in the classic games like the Freespace series, X Wing/TiE Fighter series, Tachyon and the Elite series and also in flight sims like IL2, the CFS series, Lock On, the Falcon series and a load of other flight sims. So this leaves me wondering is it me or is it CIGs game itself? I am leaning toward the latter.

If they are going to start selling branded HOTAS setups they really need to make the game better to fly and fight first with such a controller and ignoring the horde of gamepad users out there would be a grave error too. Gamepads (love or loath them) are everywhere these days.

Basically then more polish CIG!

 

 

Right now if you use a joystick (or god forbid) a gamepad, people using a mouse and keyboard will slaughter you. They really need to counter this by giving joysticks and gamepads a buff when it comes to targeting or this game will just end up as a FPS shooter. 

I think the issue is that it is actually VERY difficult to balance this sort of thing.  They certainly have been making the attempt, there is significant controller and/or flight model tuning in every major update.  Keep in mind, it's not like other games where they can simply balance various controller values, the result is also tightly coupled to the physics values of the actual simulation such as moment of inertia and thrust.  I can see why it would be hard.  

I'm personally ok with the possibility that certain control surfaces are just naturally inferior to others in certain situations.  I've gone through a phase of bouncing back and forth between HOTAS and mouse, and I can tell you that the mouse is MUCH better at rapid, precise accelerations, while the joystick is MUCH better at steady, consistent movement.  In my experience BOTH these things are needed in certain circumstances in most space sims.  The mouse and HOTAS are different devices, so it doesn't really surprise me that they are good at different things, and it doesn't really upset me.  (Though I think we are due for some novel innovations when it comes to control surface.  Unfortunately people usual seem very resistant to switching control surfaces.)

I also don't think it's fair to say that if the mouse turns out to be more useful most of the time (though I'm not asserting that that's what's ultimately going to happen) that the game will be like an FPS.  It's clearly entirely different than an FPS whether you are using a mouse or not.  I don't think anyone would say Freelancer was much like an FPS, and certainly that bears far more similarity to FPS's than SC does in its current state (no inertia, for example).

Regardless, CIG has said their goal is parity between all control surfaces, and they've certainly shown evidence of at least trying to achieve that.  Whether that's a good idea remains to be seen, I don't much mind adapting to whatever seems most appropriate for the game.

Well you see that's the thing, is it worth trying to balance the game across a range of controllers or would it be better to just focus on one and make the game a real joy to play with that controller? Right now I am trying to fly with a mouse for shooting and a gamepad for flying. It's a bit of a juggling act but we shall see if they do manage that elusive balance further on. I hope they do but I would be just as happy if they said, look this game really is better with say either a HOTAS or a mouse or a gamepad and we are building it toward that end. I personally don't have a preference. I'd fly it with what ever works best for me. I just hope we don't end up with a flight model that (because of compromises implemented to balance it out across different controllers) feels dull and unfulfilling overall.

Smart still going for it http://www.dereksmart.org/2015/08/interstellar-breach/ looks like he trying to unleash the lawyers.

I think the fundamental problem with Star Citizen is that people's expectations are not only so high, but (perhaps more importantly) so variegated, that anything they do will ultimately be seen by many as a failure.

 

One of the problems with SC is that IMO CIG rode and fed the hype train. All that "TBDwhatever". Also they have made - or, more likely, led/let surface some ludicrous mental images of the game (everything from "complete physical simulation, including every single bullet with no RNG, to a fully modeled functional spaceship systems"). 

All this is very Edsel like.

Fortunately for CiG, most people will rationalize whatever subpar (compared to impossible expectations) they are finally given, specially if one backed at multiple hundred dollars. So, even if its not a great thing, it will be lauded by the followers. Not everyone will follow that path though.

Besides general impressions I stated above, I hope that CiG will be able to deliver a decent game, although I do have some qualms about their development approach: it takes a long time and lots of interaction to create a very large, wide scope multiplayer gaming experience. And resources (money) are not a complete replacement for time. The feature creep and mostly "one bang" development approach, while understandable, are worrisome.

On a side note, I'm a early backer of the game (under 20k #) but I haven't really been following it - my presence in RSI forums is mostly restricted to Other games section :P. And I haven't even bothered to download any of the alpha stuff. So my question to the people who spent their time on it is: have they got the fundamentals (ship behavior) in place?