Star Citizen - Chris Roberts, lots of spaceship porn, lots of promises

[KevinC]

I don’t recall any games that really did damage modeling to the fidelity of what star citizen has already accomplished, but maybe I’m just unaware of them.

The question I ultimately have is: will it make a noticeable improvement to the end user?

I realize they are polar opposites in terms of genre, but some of this stuff reminds me of Hearts of Iron 3. It had all these fantastically in-depth systems for modeling weather, logistics, etc and instead of adding layers of depth to the game, it was just a buggy mess that never quite worked right. And worse, when it actually was working right, at the end it just doesn’t really make much of an impact beyond what a much simpler system would have accomplished. The game would have been much better served by simplifying the models and putting the resources elsewhere (which incidentally is exactly the direction they’re taking with HOI4).

So, okay, there’s this really cool and insanely detailed damage model, but at the end of the day is it going to add much more than say… something like Elite? I don’t know the answer to that question, it’s just the question that it raises for me. Unless it opens up significantly better gameplay experiences, it’s poorly allocated engineering resources, IMO. Just like the helmet menu.

[Timex]

Your totally right, complexity that gets lost in the noise is a waste of time. We’ll have to wait and see if there’s things make the game better or not.

[BadSport]

Ever thought it’s just a mock up?

[krayzkrok]

Those are the greatest space ship explosions I’ve ever seen, and the interior shots were impressive too. I’d pay good money just to be able to explode Star Citizen ships at will, although I draw the line at $900. ;)

Finally, I think Haegemonia: Legions of Iron will have to relinquish its “greatest space ship explosions evar” mantle. Took long enough.

[sharaleo]

I did think “holy shit, they spend a lot of time producing videos for the SC YT channel”

[Jason_Becker]

I think this is one of the reasons the game’s development is experiencing controversy. There is a huge emphasis on modeling, textures, and animation. This is reflected in the released modules and the demos.

This may be a bad thing…but this does seem to have always been a sell towards the flight sim crowd - where visuals and details are important, maybe more important than stuff to do - so it may also be a good thing.

I think the disappointments come from people who want to do more, and do it now. But looking over the pitches and such, I don’t think one can be too surprised by the approach CIG is taking.

Yea I guess this is the space equivalent of those hardcore flight sims in the 90’s that would come with hardback 200 page manuals.

[Destarius]

Yea I guess this is the space equivalent of those hardcore flight sims in the 90’s that would come with hardback 200 page manuals.

Except I understand that they will charge you additional for the manual in Star Citizen.

[zx81-Amd64]

I’m sort of curious about how the Citizen Con thing will go, compared to the others we’ve had. It is in the uk isn’t it? We are notorious for our stiff upper lip and not whooping in public (i think…we used to be at any rate?). Beer, free beer, might be the solution?

[Juan_Raigada]

I don’t recall any games that really did damage modeling to the fidelity of what star citizen has already accomplished, but maybe I’m just unaware of them.

Many flight sims.

It could work. I think it’s unnecessary, though. This is not a super realistic space sim (where I would love the modelling) but a pew pew in space game.

[mok]

This is not a super realistic space sim (where I would love the modelling) but a pew pew in space game.

Are you sure? Looking over the materials and website it is hard to tell. I don’t see ‘action’ as the big pitch.

[Juan_Raigada]

This is just my impression from playing what’s there of the game. It’s obviously a step up in simulation from WC and the likes, but not necessarily a sim. Enough reality to create immersion. But it’s still pew pew (with low-punch pews) and flying.

But, my point was that any game featuring space fighters is not realistic by definition :P. Extreme damage modelling are cool in realistic sims because they aim to reproduce a real world experience. Here, at best, they will create emergent moment to moment narratives, and at worst it will create a lot of unknowns for pilots who don’t know what the hell is wrong with their ship. So we could get cool outcomes from all this modelling, but it could be replaced by much simpler systems to the same effect (perceptually to the player) thus the unnecesary statement.

[Fishbreath]

Many flight sims.

Yup.

In DCS Black Shark, the Ka-50 has two hydraulic systems, one main and one backup. I’d frequently seen both systems failing together, so I posted to the forms about it.

Turns out that there are a lot of places where both hydraulic systems are in close proximity, so hits to the gun-laying system or the landing gear area will frequently puncture both hydraulic systems, and cause them both to fail, at different rates, depending on the relative sizes of the leaks.

[Stepsongrapes]

I think for their vision, the detailed modeling is crucial. What use is a $900 giant, multi crewed ship if it’s essentially a giant blob?

They may or may not pull it off, but spending time on a complex damage and explosion model is at least game facing.

[JeffL]

I don’t recall any games that really did damage modeling to the fidelity of what star citizen has already accomplished, but maybe I’m just unaware of them.

Quite a few. Probably more detailed than what is being done in SC. As someone mentioned, the DCS sims. Also, Jane’s F/A-18 Simulator back 16 years ago was incredibly detailed and intricate, tracking every shell, every piece of shrapnel, modeling it’s path through the aircraft, and modeling the current and developing damage and interaction between systems. 16 years ago, with a MUCH smaller team (I interviewed them in their offices back then for CGW or CGM, can’t remember.) With a much shorter timeline and budget. With MUCH less powerful computer systems than available today. They created that damage modeling, incredibly realistic flight models, tremendously complex flight systems (including a radar/weapon control system that the Navy needed to approve before release,) detailed weapons systems - I remember seeing the piles of thick manuals on their desks, and asked CJ how in the heck they had access to all of this military data - weather systems, realistic carrier landing systems, realistic allied and enemy aircraft, etc.

Seeing stuff like that, 15 and more years ago, is why I am underwhelmed by an explosion and the team expressing their “awesome, dude!” self congratulations, after years and with a huge team and a crap load of cash. And selling $1000 promises. And no released game yet. Those teams would have delivered an actual Tie Fighter and Death Star with those resources. In two years.

[Timex]

Quite a few. Probably more detailed than what is being done in SC. As someone mentioned, the DCS sims. Also, Jane’s F/A-18 Simulator back 16 years ago was incredibly detailed and intricate, tracking every shell, every piece of shrapnel, modeling it’s path through the aircraft, and modeling the current and developing damage and interaction between systems. 16 years ago, with a MUCH smaller team (I interviewed them in their offices back then for CGW or CGM, can’t remember.) With a much shorter timeline and budget. With MUCH less powerful computer systems than available today. They created that damage modeling, incredibly realistic flight models, tremendously complex flight systems (including a radar/weapon control system that the Navy needed to approve before release,) detailed weapons systems - I remember seeing the piles of thick manuals on their desks, and asked CJ how in the heck they had access to all of this military data - weather systems, realistic carrier landing systems, realistic allied and enemy aircraft, etc.

Seeing stuff like that, 15 and more years ago, is why I am underwhelmed by an explosion and the team expressing their “awesome, dude!” self congratulations, after years and with a huge team and a crap load of cash. And selling $1000 promises. And no released game yet. Those teams would have delivered an actual Tie Fighter and Death Star with those resources. In two years.

I think that there are intentions of including aspects of the types of simulations that exist in DCS, but with the added complexity of spaceships and new weapons. While designing totally new ships, rather than modeling ones that already exist. Where you can actually be inside those ships, and see the damage effects inside them.

Certainly, if all they had was an explosion simulator as you suggest, that would be terrible. But this is just a feature which exists within three larger context of the game.

[Juan_Raigada]

I can tell you right away that the complexity they are modelling is nowhere close to DCS complexity. And thank god for that, imho.

There is a single man space fighter simulator aiming for DCS complexity, but I can’t remember the name now.

Also, although it’s irrelevant, there’s no added complexity to simulating a fictional spaceship when comparing it with a real jet fighter. It’s the opposite. You don’t have to simulate engineering oversights and faulty systems and you can cut corners by saying, hey, it doesn’t really exist, so I can choose how it works.

[JeffL]

I can tell you right away that the complexity they are modelling is nowhere close to DCS complexity. And thank god for that, imho.

There is a single man space fighter simulator aiming for DCS complexity, but I can’t remember the name now.

Also, although it’s irrelevant, there’s no added complexity to simulating a fictional spaceship when comparing it with a real jet fighter. It’s the opposite. You don’t have to simulate engineering oversights and faulty systems and you can cut corners by saying, hey, it doesn’t really exist, so I can choose how it works.

Exactly. They can make it up. Unlike the teams who have to actually put the effort in to make sure it is verifiably correct. “The added complexity of spaceships and new weapons” is not “added complexity” - it makes it easier. If you want to model a modern air to air missile, with all of the real world complexities of how it targets, how it reacts to real world countermeasures, the physics of an atmosphere, damage dealt depending on where it hits, proximity of where it explodes, etc. you have a very challenging task.

If you are going to put in a zaxon zapper laser weapon, or a Federation particle missile, you can just create any model that feels right to you. You can just make it up. No spaceship they are making up is more complex than the full makeup (weapons systems, radar systems, countermeasures systems, engines, flight models, materials of construction, radar visibility, etc.) of, say, an F-16 or an Apache.

[Timex]

Exactly. They can make it up. Unlike the teams who have to actually put the effort in to make sure it is verifiably correct. “The added complexity of spaceships and new weapons” is not “added complexity” - it makes it easier. If you want to model a modern air to air missile, with all of the real world complexities of how it targets, how it reacts to real world countermeasures, the physics of an atmosphere, damage dealt depending on where it hits, proximity of where it explodes, etc. you have a very challenging task.

If you are going to put in a zaxon zapper laser weapon, or a Federation particle missile, you can just create any model that feels right to you. You can just make it up. No spaceship they are making up is more complex than the full makeup (weapons systems, radar systems, countermeasures systems, engines, flight models, materials of construction, radar visibility, etc.) of, say, an F-16 or an Apache.

As someone who has actually worked on real training simulations, I understand the complexities involved with trying to simulate real world systems. However, the idea that “just making it up” is easier is kind of mistaken. It’s a different kind of complexity.

For real world systems, in many ways it’s just a research problem. The documentation exists, if you can access it and depending on the audience on some level it didn’t even matter. For instance, if you are making an unclassified simulator? Guess what? That shit isn’t real either. But it’s still modeled based on existing systems.

Creating a new system isn’t simply a matter of making up whatever you want. Because some things will make sense, and some things won’t. If you want to have some kind of consistency in the system, there generally has to be some kind of actual rationality behind the design. Complete randomness in design won’t necessarily result in a good experience. So you end up having a different kind of complexity, and one that involves some degree of invention. You are creating new systems which don’t exist, and thus aren’t just a research problem.

Now, all that being said I’m not going to argue that star citizen’s models are as complex as DCS . I’ll cede that they are not as intricate in certain aspects (for instance, replicating startup sequences isn’t really something I think most folks want to do). But at the same time, I think perhaps you are letting your cynicism regarding the game kind of blind you to some of their accomplishments.

o spaceship they are making up is more complex than the full makeup (weapons systems, radar systems, countermeasures systems, engines, flight models, materials of construction, radar visibility, etc.) of, say, an F-16 or an Apache.

Are you sure? All of the things you mentioned here are being included in the ship modeling of star citizen.

[JeffL]

As someone who has actually worked on real training simulations, I understand the complexities involved with trying to simulate real world systems. However, the idea that “just making it up” is easier is kind of mistaken. It’s a different kind of complexity.

For real world systems, in many ways it’s just a research problem. The documentation exists, if you can access it and depending on the audience on some level it didn’t even matter. For instance, if you are making an unclassified simulator? Guess what? That shit isn’t real either. But it’s still modeled based on existing systems.

Creating a new system isn’t simply a matter of making up whatever you want. Because some things will make sense, and some things won’t. If you want to have some kind of consistency in the system, there generally has to be some kind of actual rationality behind the design. Complete randomness in design won’t necessarily result in a good experience. So you end up having a different kind of complexity, and one that involves some degree of invention. You are creating new systems which don’t exist, and thus aren’t just a research problem.

Now, all that being said I’m not going to argue that star citizen’s models are as complex as DCS . I’ll cede that they are not as intricate in certain aspects (for instance, replicating startup sequences isn’t really something I think most folks want to do). But at the same time, I think perhaps you are letting your cynicism regarding the game kind of blind you to some of their accomplishments.

Are you sure? All of the things you mentioned here are being included in the ship modeling of star citizen.

Perhaps, but back in my writing days I remember interviewing designers and developers of all kinds of sims (that was one of my specialties) and I recall some space sim developers talking about how much easier it was when you didn’t have the constraints of reality. Sure, you can’t just say “OK, we’ll just have a space missile behave randomly” but you can indeed make up how you want it to behave and then program that. I’m not arguing that what they need to do is easy or even simple. I’m just saying that compared to what much smaller teams with much smaller budgets and much tighter timelines have accomplished 15 or more years ago, I’m not oohing and aahhhing over a fancy explosion, nor blown away with them designing damage systems that calculate individual systems and interdependencies.

[JonRowe]

Citizen Con is live on twitch right now.

Looking pretty impressive.