SpaceSimCentral

Am I the only one being reminded of Bob Ross when listening to Joshs videos?

Who is Bob Ross?. Interview on RPS with josh [url]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/30/interview-limit-theory-creator-josh-parnell/[/url] and Space game junkie has another one with him.[url]http://www.spacegamejunkie.com/featured/limit-theory-qa-limitless-procedural-good-timiness/[/url]

Well procedural generagon is more a must for a small or one men team. If you gonna make a content heavy game without a army of artist. That why it much more popular with the small programming focused little teams. Doing something bigger. For me it is also the only way to go. But it does sound like a feature creep. With the big studio. To pitch something. The publisher also takes into acount.Recent similar game sucseses.The team capabilities are filled in.The CV of the lead developer. As in deliverd titles.So to KS what has this guy delivered before this. Only finished game counts.We know what Frontier did in the past.We know what chriss roberts did in the past.They have a few commercial games that back up there chance to deliver. By veteran game industry experience.For a game project like the big studios. Planing is key. And risk management. Also a producer to manage the team and project.This means every key feature is analised if its feasable and dev resources cost and if there is experience on it within the team. Even fallback senarioos to replace it. If 70% is nothing more then a part of a list of features some with huge impact on implementation needs and no clue for feasability or any planning for milestone. Such project is like russian roulette. With more then halfe the mag filled. High chance to fail. Or miss any deadline or milestones. And run in much more problems.So my opinion procedural generation is the right choice for a small team to handle bigger job where you don't have the artist for. But it doesn't counter feature creep. A still a huge pitfall.

This is Bob Ross tree needs a little friend!

This is Bob Ross[url][/url] tree needs a little friend!OH MY GOD IT'S ROLF HARRIS :O   Must be clones runaway runaway.

Dev update #1 update #2

That command interface mode on that 2nd video is great and that rail gun and the missiles were nice to watch. I am impressed with the visuals as well nice stuff.

I'm following this. I like it a LOT

I'm following this. I like it a LOT I'm with you! Those updates are always a pleasure. :nyam:

Dev update #3 [url][/url] 

This game gets better by the month, I like the simplicity and I think the combat is going to be challenging as well. 

New Pre Alpha Demo is out! Although it's only for those who backed the game on the "prototype tier". Looks impressive here is a vid 

Dev Update #5  Space itself looks a lot better than the previous videos and I kinda like these warp lanes. I think the scale of the planets need to be larger since some asteroids look very large in reference of the planet.

I did follow Limit Theory for a while (I'm not a backer though), but he likes the dusty/nebulae look far too much.That ain't anything like space for me. It's atmospheric, yes (in both senses) - but it ain't space. Different strokes etc.

Can't say that I am a fan of that in system travel he using, looks like you have these blue gate things all over the place. Shame he using jump gates as well thought the game was going to be free jump to other systems. Did like the first grey/blue Nebulae, red one was a bit garish also the game reminds me of Freelancer.

From what he said in the video the game WILL have free jump to other systems but that tech will be limited to capital ships or very expensive ships, so that you'll have to grind to get the $ to buy such a ship.

most stop using the fast forward.I completely missed that.

New update  Planet landing well not seamless transitions more of a fade in fade out as he says in the vid. was total unaware that Limit Theory was going to have this.

Considered the procedural build-up, the planetary artwork looks quite fine In the video the transition is too much kind of a warping to the planet. Way too fast.I would add an upper atmosphere sight where more gases or clouds being visible in high altitude to complete the "fade in". Same with the "fade out". I never understood why "seamless transition" should be the non-plus-ultra. When you are in space the planet engine is not running. When you come to the planet, most of the space engine is unloaded to replace it with the planet's engine. The faster goes the transition and the more invisible (no sudden pop-ups), the better it is.Is it technically really so hard to have multiple engines in the same game, one for space, one for planets? A similar "new" engine system can be watched with the SpaceEngine (0.97 the latest version). I don't think it's entirly seamless, but the effect is quite the same. XenonS

Another update