You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
I'm convinced now that this game will never "release". There will not come a time when you can buy the game and play it.
You can only "donate" to the effort to create a game, and play whatever they have now as it is being developed. Their development projections are so far off, they are in another county's ballpark. That is all you have though.
If they never release a production game you do not get your money back, they make that clear.
Is it a scam? Not really if you know all this before you join in; you can probably get $45 worth of entertainment from it.
I'm convinced now that this game will never "release". There will not come a time when you can buy the game and play it.
You can only "donate" to the effort to create a game, and play whatever they have now as it is being developed. Their development projections are so far off, they are in another county's ballpark. That is all you have though.
If they never release a production game you do not get your money back, they make that clear.
Is it a scam? Not really if you know all this before you join in; you can probably get $45 worth of entertainment from it.
Even though I can ask for a refund in my account control panel. #weird
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
Thank you, I am enjoying it
You're conflating network performance with client-side rendering performance.
I'd also point out PS1 did use a real time physics model for certain weapons and vehicles.
I mentioned PS1 in particular because PS2 has over twice the headcount for similarly dynamic battlefields along with some solid rendering fluff for clients and expanded physics simulation.
To which PS2 is a decade old.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
Roberts was right about their being a well of support for space games, when the big companies didn't believe it. Sadly, Roberts is good at the elevator pitch level, but terrible beyond that. It's been nearly 30 years since he last released a game. He's never successfully helmed a game outside of the structure of Origin Systems.
Having a narcissistic micromanager with delusions of grandeur as your head developer is not a great proposition. And as long as they can keep the money coming in, there's little incentive to prepare an actual release.
Not to even parse the delay of the single player SQ42. If SQ404 isn't spectacular, the house of cards could fall. Delay, delay, delay.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If the forum user don't have actual feedback on something that can be played, why post on it ? It's hard to beleive after all this time, I'm one of the more positive posters here.
Star Citizen is groundbreaking, period. In it's current form, no other game offers the level of detail in a high science fiction setting, there no comparison. Until another developer can create the scale and depth in game play , a "release date" is is arbitrary.
This game has gone from hype of the century to scandal of the century to meme of the century to now just background noise. I guess there's still enough people interested to keep funneling millions into this thing, though.
Not really. +500K More NEW individual backers pledging in 202. All blins except of course naysayers talking about scam or such non sense.
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
Thank you, I am enjoying it
You're conflating network performance with client-side rendering performance.
I'd also point out PS1 did use a real time physics model for certain weapons and vehicles.
I mentioned PS1 in particular because PS2 has over twice the headcount for similarly dynamic battlefields along with some solid rendering fluff for clients and expanded physics simulation.
To which PS2 is a decade old.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
how many planets were running on one client simultaneously ?
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
Thank you, I am enjoying it
You're conflating network performance with client-side rendering performance.
I'd also point out PS1 did use a real time physics model for certain weapons and vehicles.
I mentioned PS1 in particular because PS2 has over twice the headcount for similarly dynamic battlefields along with some solid rendering fluff for clients and expanded physics simulation.
To which PS2 is a decade old.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
how many planets were running on one client simultaneously ?
Planets don't run on clients.
Unless they goofed something REALLY hard, that is.
Aside from that, what you really ought to know is how much actively paged space is being utilized across a game.
You could point at how many planets NMS has and claim something about it's size, but fact is most of that stuff is unloaded data. Same thing applies to planets and even regions of planets for Star Citizen. The simulation of content is chunked up into scaling regions, with empty regions disabled since there's no one around to worry about and only spun up/cached for runtime when people approach adjacent areas.
There's a whole methodology done around this to optimize performance for games, and it's been a common thing for ages. The actual size of an environment only means as much as the scale of a single region/cell within a game, which you are flying through plenty of those on a trip just around a planet.
Actively paged space, on the other hand, his how much of the game is being actively managed by the server, not idly sitting in the background. Add to that player and content density, and you got a very different equation you need to be sorting out for server (and engine) performance.
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
Thank you, I am enjoying it
All that is client-side. Nothing to do with number of players affecting game / server performance. Polygons, "volumetric details" and other tech verbiage only matter If your rig cannot handle 100 players on screen.
Years and years ago (around 2014 - 2016 to be more precise) when playing Rift I did monitor my network traffic out of curiosity. Rift had this huge quasi open world PvP every hour or two, called Conquest, where you would have 3 full raids battling for control of a zone. When the zergs clashed, it was a slideshow. Literally - there weren't any 'FPS' to talk about, there were SPFs.
The thing is, during those fights with 100+ players on screen, my network traffic was in the tens of kilobytes. Now, did servers have to work more? Certainly. But servers generally only focus on raw numbers, player states, etc. - not on anything related to visual quality and effects.
With the evolution of server hardware since then (just look at what a single EPYC can do compared to 2014), what reason do we have for not being able to reproduce tech that was available a decade ago? Unless you're trying to reinvent the wheel and use it as an excuse in your marketing and PR, and end up throwing good chunks of your work out of the window, as CIG did so many times since 2012.
You realize Planetside had 200 player battles what...two decades ago?
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
200 players over linear content on 2 decades ago game engine.... estimated polygon count, wouldn't even be possible , as well as volumetric details and real time physics calculations,tessellation, lighting.. incomparable.
Thank you, I am enjoying it
All that is client-side. Nothing to do with number of players affecting game / server performance. Polygons, "volumetric details" and other tech verbiage only matter If your rig cannot handle 100 players on screen.
Years and years ago (around 2014 - 2016 to be more precise) when playing Rift I did monitor my network traffic out of curiosity. Rift had this huge quasi open world PvP every hour or two, called Conquest, where you would have 3 full raids battling for control of a zone. When the zergs clashed, it was a slideshow. Literally - there weren't any 'FPS' to talk about, there were SPFs.
The thing is, during those fights with 100+ players on screen, my network traffic was in the tens of kilobytes. Now, did servers have to work more? Certainly. But servers generally only focus on raw numbers, player states, etc. - not on anything related to visual quality and effects.
With the evolution of server hardware since then (just look at what a single EPYC can do compared to 2014), what reason do we have for not being able to reproduce tech that was available a decade ago? Unless you're trying to reinvent the wheel and use it as an excuse in your marketing and PR, and end up throwing good chunks of your work out of the window, as CIG did so many times since 2012.
LOL. Lets look at actual facts.
In the battles specific parts of the ship are hit and take actual integrity damage. 100 ships all taking "server side" damage calications for all 100 players so as damage is triggered per player on a specific point on a ship.
As far as I can remember, planetside ships simply blow up after a % of hits on a hit box.
In Star Citizen there's several hit boxes on ever ship, several modules on ever ship, several different weapons on every ship. Different engines, coolers, quantum drives.
So please forgive me while I look amazed that a 200 polygon character can run around in mass, why hundreds of thousands of polygons on a single ship is limiting.
You realize all you're talking about is a raycast through a set of hitboxes. Why are you trying to hype that up as if that's a massive complexity thing? Hitboxes themselves are not complex models or entity components, again, unless they goofed up HARD on Star Citizen.
It actually is a big difference from that to having fully independent agents that the server has to track actions independently for. One agent costs a server a lot more than a hitbox.
You realize all you're talking about is a raycast through a set of hitboxes. Why are you trying to hype that up as if that's a massive complexity thing? Hitboxes themselves are not complex models or entity components, again, unless they goofed up HARD on Star Citizen.
It actually is a big difference from that to having fully independent agents that the server has to track actions independently for. One agent costs a server a lot more than a hitbox.
thank you for your opinion. I've models in Half Life, Valve HAmmer, Unreal Engine and Blender as self taught. I can actual appreciate what Star Citizen a bit more because I'm no arrogant enough to know when something I have not created is "messed up".
From your posting, I don't think you grasp the fidelity of Star Citizen. It's going for Ultra Realist visuals. As I am playing it right now, i can attest it is the highest in graphical fidelity current computers can render.
And I've worked on prior MMO titles like Firefall professionally as an engineer, your point? Dick-waving doesn't do you any good there, only the reality of the topic.
The reality is you've been conflating your claims and tech from the get-go. So to be bragging that you learned things by tooling with models in other engine editors and a modeling program only explains why you've been misinformed.
Point in case, your fresh comment on fidelity and "ultra-realist visuals" which is a client side rendering concern, not a server tech concern. Something that was already pointed out previously too.
Again, you're free to enjoy the game. You don't need to make up excuses to do so.
And I've worked on prior MMO titles like Firefall professionally as an engineer, your point? Dick-waving doesn't do you any good there, only the reality of the topic.
The reality is you've been conflating your claims and tech from the get-go. So to be bragging that you learned things by tooling with models in other engine editors and a modeling program only explains why you've been misinformed.
Point in case, your fresh comment on fidelity and "ultra-realist visuals" which is a client side rendering concern, not a server tech concern. Something that was already pointed out previously too.
Again, you're free to enjoy the game. You don't need to make up excuses to do so.
Roberts was right about their being a well of support for space games, when the big companies didn't believe it. Sadly, Roberts is good at the elevator pitch level, but terrible beyond that. It's been nearly 30 years since he last released a game. He's never successfully helmed a game outside of the structure of Origin Systems.
Having a narcissistic micromanager with delusions of grandeur as your head developer is not a great proposition. And as long as they can keep the money coming in, there's little incentive to prepare an actual release.
Not to even parse the delay of the single player SQ42. If SQ404 isn't spectacular, the house of cards could fall. Delay, delay, delay.
How's your hero's Warren Spector System Shock game going?
I'm convinced now that this game will never "release". There will not come a time when you can buy the game and play it.
You can only "donate" to the effort to create a game, and play whatever they have now as it is being developed. Their development projections are so far off, they are in another county's ballpark. That is all you have though.
If they never release a production game you do not get your money back, they make that clear.
Is it a scam? Not really if you know all this before you join in; you can probably get $45 worth of entertainment from it.
Even though I can ask for a refund in my account control panel. #weird
Yeah, I had to request a refund. After buying the latest and best AMD rig, I got the game and found out it doesn't even boot up on AMD hardware. Black screen then crash. The word was that in the future they had a patch that fixed that, but to me it seemed odd that a game that has been in development for 10 years still needs a patch to even boot up on modern hardware.
You're conflating network performance with client-side rendering performance.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
What false argument?
Are you saying that MMOs don't need to tone down graphical complexity, physics sim and all that jazz as to achieve a balance of MP density vs visual quality?!
I mean the evidence it's literally in every MMO ever, even Unreal 5 with its beefy rendering improvements, with the upcoming MMO Throne and Liberty, on MP density situations such as world bosses with dozens of players, the client rendering performance is still tanking.
So it's absolutely fair to consider client performance on the MP scalability of an online game as this, because it is one of the limiting factors.
What's the point on scaling the server capacity if it the scenarios of increased density won't output a playable performance? One can't forget on SC a player is not just its character, it's that + its ship + vehicle, which is where the main simulation & rendering costs are.
Optimization passes have to kick in obviously, stuff like culling ship interiors, etc.
Which is why if you face SC against PS2 in terms of network costs of due to the amount and complexity of entities and rendering costs on higher density scenarios, it's quite different realities.
You're conflating network performance with client-side rendering performance.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
What false argument?
Are you saying that MMOs don't need to tone down graphical complexity, physics sim and all that jazz as to achieve a balance of MP density vs visual quality?!
I mean the evidence it's literally in every MMO ever, even Unreal 5 with its beefy rendering improvements, with the upcoming MMO Throne and Liberty, on MP density situations such as world bosses with dozens of players, the client rendering performance is still tanking.
So it's absolutely fair to consider client performance on the MP scalability of an online game as this, because it is one of the limiting factors.
What's the point on scaling the server capacity if it the scenarios of increased density won't output a playable performance? One can't forget on SC a player is not just its character, it's that + its ship + vehicle, which is where the main simulation & rendering costs are.
Optimization passes have to kick in obviously, stuff like culling ship interiors, etc.
Which is why if you face SC against PS2 in terms of network costs of due to the amount and complexity of entities and rendering costs on higher density scenarios, it's quite different realities.
UE's challenge with networking is very well known and has nothing to do with visuals. None of the server performance has anything to do visual complexity or quality, that is 100% client side. The server couldn't care less what visual bells and whistles your client is running, it functions purely on numbers. To the server you might as well be playing as a block of untextured wood. All it cares about are numbers, IDs, states, etc. Player ID 9823673 on the mount 3487654 with the weapon 19829813 is all they process and couldn't give a toss about the complexity of the displayed assets.
The issue of MMOs being less visually appealing (at least until BDO and such came along) has nothing to do with server performance. However, the need to render potentially hundreds of players around you, especially in large hubs, does have an effect on your local machine, so there's that. But it has nothing to do with servers, those just (in a simplified form) pass on to your client the message 'player avatar A standing at position X,Y,Z, doing the picking nose emote, wearing armour ID XX' and your client then takes over actually rendering all that and showing it to you.
And then there is also the simple fact of your target audience and their machines. Many MMOs voluntarily lower their visual fidelity to accommodate a wider range of players: see WoW for example. And finally, there's the financial side - if you can get satisfactory performance and have 99% happy player population, why would you spend tons of cash on extra server performance just to get the extra 1%? Diminishing returns and all that...
You might argue that SC is adding a lot of subsystems to each ship that games previously did not bother with (although you would probably find examples to the contrary), but then those will again be reduced by the servers to their IDs and states represented by a few short variables.
Even if you take into account all that, you inevitably arrive to the point mentioned above: if the number of systems the games manage have increased over the years, so has the servers' capacity and processing power. You may argue that SC has ships 10 time more complex in terms of game systems, but today's top of the line server CPUs are probably a hundred times faster than what we had 10 years ago.
Comments
How many people participate in EVE battles?
EDIT: By all means enjoy what's there for the game if you like it, but don't overblow the reality of it either. That's sort of part of why butting heads takes place.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
my pc is lower mid level and never had 30sec lag spikes. Crashes yes. 30 second lag no.
Even though I can ask for a refund in my account control panel. #weird
I'd also point out PS1 did use a real time physics model for certain weapons and vehicles.
I mentioned PS1 in particular because PS2 has over twice the headcount for similarly dynamic battlefields along with some solid rendering fluff for clients and expanded physics simulation.
To which PS2 is a decade old.
Simply put, people need to not evoke the generally false argument that the engine or tech presented is innovative. It can still be a perfectly fine game for you to enjoy without trying to scrape for excuses.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
Not really. +500K More NEW individual backers pledging in 202. All blins except of course naysayers talking about scam or such non sense.
how many planets were running on one client simultaneously ?
Unless they goofed something REALLY hard, that is.
Aside from that, what you really ought to know is how much actively paged space is being utilized across a game.
You could point at how many planets NMS has and claim something about it's size, but fact is most of that stuff is unloaded data. Same thing applies to planets and even regions of planets for Star Citizen. The simulation of content is chunked up into scaling regions, with empty regions disabled since there's no one around to worry about and only spun up/cached for runtime when people approach adjacent areas.
There's a whole methodology done around this to optimize performance for games, and it's been a common thing for ages. The actual size of an environment only means as much as the scale of a single region/cell within a game, which you are flying through plenty of those on a trip just around a planet.
Actively paged space, on the other hand, his how much of the game is being actively managed by the server, not idly sitting in the background. Add to that player and content density, and you got a very different equation you need to be sorting out for server (and engine) performance.
All that is client-side. Nothing to do with number of players affecting game / server performance. Polygons, "volumetric details" and other tech verbiage only matter If your rig cannot handle 100 players on screen.
Years and years ago (around 2014 - 2016 to be more precise) when playing Rift I did monitor my network traffic out of curiosity. Rift had this huge quasi open world PvP every hour or two, called Conquest, where you would have 3 full raids battling for control of a zone. When the zergs clashed, it was a slideshow. Literally - there weren't any 'FPS' to talk about, there were SPFs.
The thing is, during those fights with 100+ players on screen, my network traffic was in the tens of kilobytes. Now, did servers have to work more? Certainly. But servers generally only focus on raw numbers, player states, etc. - not on anything related to visual quality and effects.
With the evolution of server hardware since then (just look at what a single EPYC can do compared to 2014), what reason do we have for not being able to reproduce tech that was available a decade ago? Unless you're trying to reinvent the wheel and use it as an excuse in your marketing and PR, and end up throwing good chunks of your work out of the window, as CIG did so many times since 2012.
It actually is a big difference from that to having fully independent agents that the server has to track actions independently for. One agent costs a server a lot more than a hitbox.
The reality is you've been conflating your claims and tech from the get-go. So to be bragging that you learned things by tooling with models in other engine editors and a modeling program only explains why you've been misinformed.
Point in case, your fresh comment on fidelity and "ultra-realist visuals" which is a client side rendering concern, not a server tech concern. Something that was already pointed out previously too.
Again, you're free to enjoy the game. You don't need to make up excuses to do so.
Firefall was fun. Shame it shut down.
How's your hero's Warren Spector System Shock game going?
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
What false argument?
Are you saying that MMOs don't need to tone down graphical complexity, physics sim and all that jazz as to achieve a balance of MP density vs visual quality?!
I mean the evidence it's literally in every MMO ever, even Unreal 5 with its beefy rendering improvements, with the upcoming MMO Throne and Liberty, on MP density situations such as world bosses with dozens of players, the client rendering performance is still tanking.
So it's absolutely fair to consider client performance on the MP scalability of an online game as this, because it is one of the limiting factors.
What's the point on scaling the server capacity if it the scenarios of increased density won't output a playable performance? One can't forget on SC a player is not just its character, it's that + its ship + vehicle, which is where the main simulation & rendering costs are.
Optimization passes have to kick in obviously, stuff like culling ship interiors, etc.
Which is why if you face SC against PS2 in terms of network costs of due to the amount and complexity of entities and rendering costs on higher density scenarios, it's quite different realities.
UE's challenge with networking is very well known and has nothing to do with visuals. None of the server performance has anything to do visual complexity or quality, that is 100% client side. The server couldn't care less what visual bells and whistles your client is running, it functions purely on numbers. To the server you might as well be playing as a block of untextured wood. All it cares about are numbers, IDs, states, etc. Player ID 9823673 on the mount 3487654 with the weapon 19829813 is all they process and couldn't give a toss about the complexity of the displayed assets.
The issue of MMOs being less visually appealing (at least until BDO and such came along) has nothing to do with server performance. However, the need to render potentially hundreds of players around you, especially in large hubs, does have an effect on your local machine, so there's that. But it has nothing to do with servers, those just (in a simplified form) pass on to your client the message 'player avatar A standing at position X,Y,Z, doing the picking nose emote, wearing armour ID XX' and your client then takes over actually rendering all that and showing it to you.
And then there is also the simple fact of your target audience and their machines. Many MMOs voluntarily lower their visual fidelity to accommodate a wider range of players: see WoW for example. And finally, there's the financial side - if you can get satisfactory performance and have 99% happy player population, why would you spend tons of cash on extra server performance just to get the extra 1%? Diminishing returns and all that...
You might argue that SC is adding a lot of subsystems to each ship that games previously did not bother with (although you would probably find examples to the contrary), but then those will again be reduced by the servers to their IDs and states represented by a few short variables.
Even if you take into account all that, you inevitably arrive to the point mentioned above: if the number of systems the games manage have increased over the years, so has the servers' capacity and processing power. You may argue that SC has ships 10 time more complex in terms of game systems, but today's top of the line server CPUs are probably a hundred times faster than what we had 10 years ago.