Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
We've seen that SC's flight model is in fact more realistic than E:D's, so that's a perfectly acceptable claim.
No that's a false statement. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it's true.
The E:D flight model basically uses many of the conventions of atmospheric flight to "make dogfighting interesting and fun". Anyone who has played a normal flight sim will not struggle too much to get used to the basic controls and conventions.
For instance, in E:D, swinging the nose of your ship from side-to-side (yaw) is severely slowed, as opposed to moving the nose up and down (pitch). That is done to prevent "turreting", where your ship moves forward in a constant direction, but you can point the nose anywhere you like (similar to the ball-turret under a B-17 bomber).
It was decided that having that ability would not make for enjoyable game play, so the ship movement was intentionally limited. The number and placement of directional thrusters on E:D ships supports this limitation.
In SC on the other hand, the number and placement of directional thrusters on most ships would allow equal rates of movement for both pitch and yaw. This means that if the pilot is skilled enough, they can hit an enemy while approaching, as they pass by and then hit their rear as they fly away (turreting).
So the SC flight model is currently closer to what is possible in real space flight. Whether it will remain that way is anyone's guess, game play always overrides realism in the end, the question is usually just by how much.
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
+1
the strategy of the so called critics was extremely inconsistent, going from
the game has too much budget
switching to
the game doesn´t have enough budget ,
finally arriving at
the game can´t be made, no matter how much budget.
Seriously, WTH? Armchair devs are annoying.
Now CIG has all the important puzzles pieces assembled, large world is in, 64 bit for unlimited universe size is in, Quantum travel is in, avatar/FPS mechanics are in, zero-G is in. What´s missing? Tieing it all together, polishing and finishing it up while Foundry 42 finishes the campaign. No easy task but certainly nothing remotely impossible.
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
Originally posted by Ryptide
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
A pointless comparison
We are talking about a man here who earns his money by selling ideas.
The more money he earns the further does the release seem to get pushed backwards.
It seems normal to have some doubts about this model and someone making his first post about this - and that twice - won't change our minds.
In SC on the other hand, the number and placement of directional thrusters on most ships would allow equal rates of movement for both pitch and yaw. This means that if the pilot is skilled enough, they can hit an enemy while approaching, as they pass by and then hit their rear as they fly away (turreting).
So the SC flight model is currently closer to what is possible in real space flight. Whether it will remain that way is anyone's guess, game play always overrides realism in the end, the question is usually just by how much.
In SC you have ghost thrusters, invisible because their location doesn't fit the design of the ship, you have space brakes, you have tiny thrusters more powerful than huge main engines, you have multi tonne ships that spin and flip around faster than a 7 stone ballerina, that accelerate to full speed and back to zero again within 5 seconds.
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
Originally posted by Ryptide
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
A pointless comparison
We are talking about a man here who earns his money by selling ideas.
The more money he earns the further does the release seem to get pushed backwards.
It seems normal to have some doubts about this model and someone making his first post about this - and that twice - won't change our minds.
Why is the comparison pointless? You do realize that when JFK said that they were going to land on the moon, there was, literally, nothing in place. We had no idea how that was going to be done, we had no idea how to accomplish that and, for all intents and purposes, it was thought to be impossible. However, it was driven by the want and need to defeat Russia and communism and so they sunk tens of BILLIONS into NASA to make it happen.
It makes sense that this game will take a lot of money to make. What makes you believe that he's only selling ideas? First people said he wasn't producing anything and he released Arena Commander. Since then there have been demos of ship boarding and, now, multicrew ships. Yet, every time that something new is released, it's just another clever ploy to part people with their money.
You do understand that, at this point, Star Citizen isn't even the most expensive game to make, right? There are games which took more money to make. Also, they don't appear to be out of money, since they just opened a new office in Germany, so we can assume that there is still some money remaining, but we can't say how much. If Chris was REALLY interested in scamming people and selling ideas, why they hell would he be employing nearly 300 people? Why not just horde all that money to himself?
In SC on the other hand, the number and placement of directional thrusters on most ships would allow equal rates of movement for both pitch and yaw. This means that if the pilot is skilled enough, they can hit an enemy while approaching, as they pass by and then hit their rear as they fly away (turreting).
So the SC flight model is currently closer to what is possible in real space flight. Whether it will remain that way is anyone's guess, game play always overrides realism in the end, the question is usually just by how much.
In SC you have ghost thrusters, invisible because their location doesn't fit the design of the ship, you have space brakes, you have tiny thrusters more powerful than huge main engines, you have multi tonne ships that spin and flip around faster than a 7 stone ballerina, that accelerate to full speed and back to zero again within 5 seconds.
That is not more realistic.
Oh, lol, are you under the impression that all the aspects of the flight models in SC should be perfectly balanced and 100% complete while the development is still in alpha stage ? Is that what we're arguing about ?
War Thunder has been in open beta for 2 years now, and many of the aircraft in that game still don't have complete, properly tuned flight models. It takes time and testing to get these things right and working to spec.
When all the propulsion components are properly tuned, the SC spacecraft will perform as they should. They will still have equal pitch and yaw, because the design of the flight model calls for it.
They will still not fly like WWII fighter planes. That is E:D's domain.
In SC you have ghost thrusters, invisible because their location doesn't fit the design of the ship, you have space brakes, you have tiny thrusters more powerful than huge main engines, you have multi tonne ships that spin and flip around faster than a 7 stone ballerina, that accelerate to full speed and back to zero again within 5 seconds.
That is not more realistic.
Oh, lol, are you under the impression that all the aspects of the flight models in SC should be perfectly balanced and 100% complete while the development is still in alpha stage ? Is that what we're arguing about ?
You know perfectly well that's not what we're arguing that. Just another silly childish attempt at moving goalposts rather than admitting you're wrong .
If you want to argue in the present about what something will be future that's something you can do by yourself. I've got no interest in making things up.
Funnily enough when CR was pitching SC he said he wanted flight to be more like Star Wars or WWII
Now CIG has all the important puzzles pieces assembled, large world is in, 64 bit for unlimited universe size is in, Quantum travel is in, avatar/FPS mechanics are in, zero-G is in. What´s missing? Tieing it all together, polishing and finishing it up while Foundry 42 finishes the campaign. No easy task but certainly nothing remotely impossible.
They are not even close to having all the pieces, and the pieces they do have are a long way form done.
What they haev shown until now is an advanced tech demo, great, that was where a project like Crowfall started when they put up thier kickstarter. SC have a LONG way ahead of it before it becomes what has been promised.
Just saying....
Squadron 42 will likely e done a few years ahead of the open universe game, as that is build on known tech, and is IMHO the most likely part of the game to achive succes.
it's quite an engineering feat to recreate the Milky Way at 1:1 scale with 160,000 correctly plotted stars, regardless of what you happen to think of the gameplay (or lack thereof).
2013 called they want their news back. No it´s not impressive, because program code batch generating 160.000 instances which they most likely had a source Excel sheet with coordinates for and placing spheres on a coordinate grid doesn´t impress me. And who says it´s true, no one can check, could just be another marketing lie. It´s nothing that hasn´t been done before, I have had Space Engine on my HD years before Frotier crawled to Kickstarter begging for money with false promises and it´s just done by one guy so tell me how much work that can be. Also Limit Theory same technique, ONE guy. Really nothing special these days. No Man´s Sky (5 people? 10?) does it too, and I don´t give a damn where they get their coordinates from that places spheres on a volumetric grid, based on "real scientific data" (yawn, marketing gag getting old)
So you're saying that Elite fans like to spend there money on actual physical goods as opposed to jpegs. That does sound more reasonable
so Elite fans prefer spending money on fake render trailers not showing gameplay, for content coming in half a year or later, falling for misleading marketing tactics PLUS this was posted on Reddit recently showing they plagiarized an EA trailer for Mass Effect!!!? WTH?
I rather spend 350$ on a "jpeg" and support the handmade crazy detailed game SC with groundbreaking multiplayer tech that actually puts the money toward development not to subsidize another rollercoaster app like Fronter does, or paying off their share holder group, Microsoft, debt or whatever else they put the money in. No one knows but this title could as well be created by 5 people and their profit going anywhere else just not into the game, because there is obviouly nothing groundbreaking that needs a huge dev team like SC has.
yeah I´ve seen that, typical Frontier. Not showing anything, fakeing gameplay trailers with render graphics. Their track record of lies is long, wonder how is that offline mode coming along they cancelled after taking all that Kickstarter money. Someone should contact the FTC.Ttoo bad they´re in UK. Don´t they have some equivalent over there?
You mean the trailer that says "not actual gameplay", sorry you were tricked, some of us know how to read.
Funny how you didn't link any of the other video's that FD have released all done in game. But back to CIG and how every one of their trailers is a rip off of something else, and none of them show actual gameplay.
In SC you have ghost thrusters, invisible because their location doesn't fit the design of the ship, you have space brakes, you have tiny thrusters more powerful than huge main engines, you have multi tonne ships that spin and flip around faster than a 7 stone ballerina, that accelerate to full speed and back to zero again within 5 seconds.
That is not more realistic.
Oh, lol, are you under the impression that all the aspects of the flight models in SC should be perfectly balanced and 100% complete while the development is still in alpha stage ? Is that what we're arguing about ?
You know perfectly well that's not what we're arguing that. Just another silly childish attempt at moving goalposts rather than admitting you're wrong .
If you want to argue in the present about what something will be future that's something you can do by yourself. I've got no interest in making things up.
Funnily enough when CR was pitching SC he said he wanted flight to be more like Star Wars or WWII
Answering a challenge with a well-reasoned response is not "moving the goalposts", lol
Maybe it feels that way if your goal-shot is deflected with such trifling ease though.
The SC propulsion systems are currently not working as intended yet.
SC flight models are currently in alpha testing.
I don't know how else to explain that ?
Are we back to the tired old mantra of: "Well, it doesn't exist now, therefore it will obviously never exist" ?
Squadron 42 will likely e done a few years ahead of the open universe game, as that is build on known tech, and is IMHO the most likely part of the game to achive succes.
I'm expecting to play Squadron 42 in 2016, otherwise I might join the dark side.
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
Originally posted by Ryptide
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
A pointless comparison
We are talking about a man here who earns his money by selling ideas.
The more money he earns the further does the release seem to get pushed backwards.
It seems normal to have some doubts about this model and someone making his first post about this - and that twice - won't change our minds.
So you base the validity of any given opinion, solely on post count. Life is a bit more complex than that.
For simplification I'll elaborate..
Sailing around the globe was thought impossible until someone did it.
Landing a man on the moon was thought impossible until someone did it.
Building a video game sim as large as Star Citizen, is being thought of as impossible until someone does it.
See the point now? I don't think it's possible to make it any simpler using words. Now if you take into consideration the extraordinary feats that we (mankind) had to do in order to accomplish the first two lines in the comparison, doesn't it seem a little silly to think that we couldn't do the 3rd one?
Men and women have been selling their ideas for thousands of years. It is known.
You mean the trailer that says "not actual gameplay", sorry you were tricked, some of us know how to read.
---> Good eyes help, it is a very small font and not shown for a long time.
Funny how you didn't link any of the other video's that FD have released all done in game. But back to CIG and how every one of their trailers is a rip off of something else, and none of them show actual gameplay.
"every one of their trailers"... Really ? How about this one (13.18 min) ?
"Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
"Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Have fun
Have fun, with your crusade.
Originally posted by laokoko "if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
You mean the trailer that says "not actual gameplay", sorry you were tricked, some of us know how to read.
---> Good eyes help, it is a very small font and not shown for a long time.
Funny how you didn't link any of the other video's that FD have released all done in game. But back to CIG and how every one of their trailers is a rip off of something else, and none of them show actual gameplay.
"every one of their trailers"... Really ? How about this one (13.18 min) ?
Not actual gameplay ? 10 people were playing it live in front of 2000 people.
"Rip off of something else" ... pray tell ... in what game have you seen something like this ?
Have fun
LOL so the instant that anything other than the logo shows is a long time? And that is 10sec into a 2 min trailer. Hahahaha. Good god the BS you spit out is funny. Man you will go to any lengths to lie, its just so sad.
If they were playing it then its not a trailer now is it. That is called a demo. Odd that you didn't know the difference. Did you want to post other pointless links? Just a hint for you next time, SEE the word DEMO in the video, means its a DEMO. Ya reading is fun, you should try it sometime.
So sad, first you lie, then you post a pointless link. Oh well just keeping to what you know I see.
I agree- that dull game is not impressive it´s a random instance generator, that´s not an accomplishment, it´s a marketing gag to pin a number like "billion" to something that just creates infinite variations of the same dull ingredients. It´s like saying Diablo has a billion dungeons because they have a random instance generator, oh look we are the biggest game ever it you can play Diablo for all eternity and never run out of new dungeons. You could as well dice roll new Minecraft maps for all eternity.
For 3+ years they keep bragging about the number of instances they generated, that´s obviously their only feature they are proud of. I wonder why SC threads constantly get derailed with off topic advertising a low quality instance shooter no one but a handful of people who played that game in the 80ies interested in.
don´t worry Star Citizen will have lots of empty space and space rocks hanging around as well, they´ll patch a trillion lightyears of emptiness in one week before release with 5 mousclicks and entering some x-y-z variables. Dunno but my educated guess is creating empty maps and star backgrounds is not the hardest part.
You don't like Random Instance generator, but then where will you get the real data for 400 Billion stars in our Galaxy?
The fact is, the distance between stars makes it impossible to pin point exac number and composition of planets in each Star System. So all we are left to do is use our imagination, based on scietifict data that we got.
To create space game with only 90+ Star System out of 400 Billion - is just sad.
LOL so the instant that anything other than the logo shows is a long time? And that is 10sec into a 2 min trailer. Hahahaha. Good god the BS you spit out is funny. Man you will go to any lengths to lie, its just so sad.
If they were playing it then its not a trailer now is it. That is called a demo. Odd that you didn't know the difference. Did you want to post other pointless links? Just a hint for you next time, SEE the word DEMO in the video, means its a DEMO. Ya reading is fun, you should try it sometime.
So sad, first you lie, then you post a pointless link. Oh well just keeping to what you know I see.
See .. thats the difference between us ... i prefer actual gameplay scenes ....
Now what is dull is to create space game with only 90+ Star System out of 400 Billion - No that's really dull. The SC Galaxy is a joke, just like the game it self.
How many of those 400 Billion in Elite:Dangerous have you personally visited ? (My personal answer: thousands)
How many of them were inhabited ? (My personal answer: only a small percentage)
I prefer those 90 star systems WITH content over 400 Billion (with only 0,000001 % filled with content)
LOL so the instant that anything other than the logo shows is a long time? And that is 10sec into a 2 min trailer. Hahahaha. Good god the BS you spit out is funny. Man you will go to any lengths to lie, its just so sad.
If they were playing it then its not a trailer now is it. That is called a demo. Odd that you didn't know the difference. Did you want to post other pointless links? Just a hint for you next time, SEE the word DEMO in the video, means its a DEMO. Ya reading is fun, you should try it sometime.
So sad, first you lie, then you post a pointless link. Oh well just keeping to what you know I see.
See .. thats the difference between us ... i prefer actual gameplay scenes ....
Have fun
LOL so that was random, so when did i say that? Oh right I didn't, just more BS from you. Oh well, its not like we expect anything else from you. At lest you didn't post anymore pointless links that have nothing to do with the discussion.
Comments
No that's a false statement. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it's true.
Great video! Can't wait to see it when it all comes together!
I'm still surprised at all the "they can never build it" hype. It makes me wonder if those folks are related to the people that argued we never landed on the moon, that the earth is still flat and you're all going to fall off the edge and die..
The E:D flight model basically uses many of the conventions of atmospheric flight to "make dogfighting interesting and fun". Anyone who has played a normal flight sim will not struggle too much to get used to the basic controls and conventions.
For instance, in E:D, swinging the nose of your ship from side-to-side (yaw) is severely slowed, as opposed to moving the nose up and down (pitch). That is done to prevent "turreting", where your ship moves forward in a constant direction, but you can point the nose anywhere you like (similar to the ball-turret under a B-17 bomber).
It was decided that having that ability would not make for enjoyable game play, so the ship movement was intentionally limited. The number and placement of directional thrusters on E:D ships supports this limitation.
In SC on the other hand, the number and placement of directional thrusters on most ships would allow equal rates of movement for both pitch and yaw. This means that if the pilot is skilled enough, they can hit an enemy while approaching, as they pass by and then hit their rear as they fly away (turreting).
So the SC flight model is currently closer to what is possible in real space flight. Whether it will remain that way is anyone's guess, game play always overrides realism in the end, the question is usually just by how much.
dbl posted
+1
the strategy of the so called critics was extremely inconsistent, going from
the game has too much budget
switching to
the game doesn´t have enough budget ,
finally arriving at
the game can´t be made, no matter how much budget.
Seriously, WTH? Armchair devs are annoying.
Now CIG has all the important puzzles pieces assembled, large world is in, 64 bit for unlimited universe size is in, Quantum travel is in, avatar/FPS mechanics are in, zero-G is in. What´s missing? Tieing it all together, polishing and finishing it up while Foundry 42 finishes the campaign. No easy task but certainly nothing remotely impossible.
A pointless comparison
We are talking about a man here who earns his money by selling ideas.
The more money he earns the further does the release seem to get pushed backwards.
It seems normal to have some doubts about this model and someone making his first post about this - and that twice - won't change our minds.
In SC you have ghost thrusters, invisible because their location doesn't fit the design of the ship, you have space brakes, you have tiny thrusters more powerful than huge main engines, you have multi tonne ships that spin and flip around faster than a 7 stone ballerina, that accelerate to full speed and back to zero again within 5 seconds.
That is not more realistic.
Why is the comparison pointless? You do realize that when JFK said that they were going to land on the moon, there was, literally, nothing in place. We had no idea how that was going to be done, we had no idea how to accomplish that and, for all intents and purposes, it was thought to be impossible. However, it was driven by the want and need to defeat Russia and communism and so they sunk tens of BILLIONS into NASA to make it happen.
It makes sense that this game will take a lot of money to make. What makes you believe that he's only selling ideas? First people said he wasn't producing anything and he released Arena Commander. Since then there have been demos of ship boarding and, now, multicrew ships. Yet, every time that something new is released, it's just another clever ploy to part people with their money.
You do understand that, at this point, Star Citizen isn't even the most expensive game to make, right? There are games which took more money to make. Also, they don't appear to be out of money, since they just opened a new office in Germany, so we can assume that there is still some money remaining, but we can't say how much. If Chris was REALLY interested in scamming people and selling ideas, why they hell would he be employing nearly 300 people? Why not just horde all that money to himself?
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Oh, lol, are you under the impression that all the aspects of the flight models in SC should be perfectly balanced and 100% complete while the development is still in alpha stage ? Is that what we're arguing about ?
War Thunder has been in open beta for 2 years now, and many of the aircraft in that game still don't have complete, properly tuned flight models. It takes time and testing to get these things right and working to spec.
When all the propulsion components are properly tuned, the SC spacecraft will perform as they should. They will still have equal pitch and yaw, because the design of the flight model calls for it.
They will still not fly like WWII fighter planes. That is E:D's domain.
You know perfectly well that's not what we're arguing that. Just another silly childish attempt at moving goalposts rather than admitting you're wrong .
If you want to argue in the present about what something will be future that's something you can do by yourself. I've got no interest in making things up.
Funnily enough when CR was pitching SC he said he wanted flight to be more like Star Wars or WWII
They are not even close to having all the pieces, and the pieces they do have are a long way form done.
What they haev shown until now is an advanced tech demo, great, that was where a project like Crowfall started when they put up thier kickstarter. SC have a LONG way ahead of it before it becomes what has been promised.
Just saying....
Squadron 42 will likely e done a few years ahead of the open universe game, as that is build on known tech, and is IMHO the most likely part of the game to achive succes.
You mean the trailer that says "not actual gameplay", sorry you were tricked, some of us know how to read.
Funny how you didn't link any of the other video's that FD have released all done in game. But back to CIG and how every one of their trailers is a rip off of something else, and none of them show actual gameplay.
Answering a challenge with a well-reasoned response is not "moving the goalposts", lol
Maybe it feels that way if your goal-shot is deflected with such trifling ease though.
The SC propulsion systems are currently not working as intended yet.
SC flight models are currently in alpha testing.
I don't know how else to explain that ?
Are we back to the tired old mantra of: "Well, it doesn't exist now, therefore it will obviously never exist" ?
I'm expecting to play Squadron 42 in 2016, otherwise I might join the dark side.
So you base the validity of any given opinion, solely on post count. Life is a bit more complex than that.
For simplification I'll elaborate..
Sailing around the globe was thought impossible until someone did it.
Landing a man on the moon was thought impossible until someone did it.
Building a video game sim as large as Star Citizen, is being thought of as impossible until someone does it.
See the point now? I don't think it's possible to make it any simpler using words. Now if you take into consideration the extraordinary feats that we (mankind) had to do in order to accomplish the first two lines in the comparison, doesn't it seem a little silly to think that we couldn't do the 3rd one?
Men and women have been selling their ideas for thousands of years. It is known.
Comparing the making of a game to sailing around the globe...
I will leave it at that.
"every one of their trailers"... Really ? How about this one (13.18 min) ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZtEEAdEihg
(or the 2 h 25 min version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AJswADTV0A )
Not actual gameplay ? 10 people were playing it live in front of 2000 people.
"Rip off of something else" ... pray tell ... in what game have you seen something like this ?
Have fun
The type of the task is irrelevant.
Many things have been declared impossible over the ages .... until someone did it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
"Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
Have fun, with your crusade.
Originally posted by laokoko
"if you want to be a game designer, you should sell your house and fund your game. Since if you won't even fund your own game, no one will".
LOL so the instant that anything other than the logo shows is a long time? And that is 10sec into a 2 min trailer. Hahahaha. Good god the BS you spit out is funny. Man you will go to any lengths to lie, its just so sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwvjElmFCfE
If they were playing it then its not a trailer now is it. That is called a demo. Odd that you didn't know the difference. Did you want to post other pointless links? Just a hint for you next time, SEE the word DEMO in the video, means its a DEMO. Ya reading is fun, you should try it sometime.
So sad, first you lie, then you post a pointless link. Oh well just keeping to what you know I see.
Heed your own motto : "I want an awesome sci-fi game that is a sandbox...give it to me!!!!"
We both want the same thing.
What have YOU done to make YOUR motto into reality ?
Have fun
You don't like Random Instance generator, but then where will you get the real data for 400 Billion stars in our Galaxy?
The fact is, the distance between stars makes it impossible to pin point exac number and composition of planets in each Star System. So all we are left to do is use our imagination, based on scietifict data that we got.
To create space game with only 90+ Star System out of 400 Billion - is just sad.
See .. thats the difference between us ... i prefer actual gameplay scenes ....
Have fun
How many of those 400 Billion in Elite:Dangerous have you personally visited ? (My personal answer: thousands)
How many of them were inhabited ? (My personal answer: only a small percentage)
I prefer those 90 star systems WITH content over 400 Billion (with only 0,000001 % filled with content)
Have fun
LOL so that was random, so when did i say that? Oh right I didn't, just more BS from you. Oh well, its not like we expect anything else from you. At lest you didn't post anymore pointless links that have nothing to do with the discussion.
Learn to read it could save your life.