A Star Citizen capital ship the size of 4 Battlefield Maps

Can I suggest you look at the difference in scale between the initial "end of 2014" release and where the game is now. Everything is far larger and even more ambitious that it was back in October 2012.

You have accept that back then C.I.G. were looking for $2.5 million as proof of concept to bring investors in. The scope had to be far smaller with a long term plan of introducing new features over time and as money came in from released game sales. We, the backers, utterly destroyed those plans by giving Chris Roberts the money he needed to shape the game into his ultimate vision for it. At the end we'll have a far better game with richer environments, more places to go and see and more ships to do it in.

Have patience, play the baby PU, help them to develop the game by playing it and telling them what's wrong, or ignore it altogether until the game is out. Whining about it not being released helps no one, gets you wound up and when the final game does come, you'll likely hate from the resentment you've built up. Sit back and enjoy the ride, there has never been a game developed as openly as this and from the flack they get, there will likely never be another.

Btw, I'm a golden ticket holder so I've seen all the stramash and nonsense that the development has gone through.

@GarGx1: Thanks for the suggestion but Im very well aware of the scale first pitched and now. You see many many of those stretch goals were passed while they still were saying a 2014 release. But hey we get S42 later this year so I guess 2 years late is better than nothing. I dont see how posting what the people making this game says as whining but whatever.

@panda30 said:

not really impress all it is it's a big playing field

a smal island on WoW map can be consider 10 to 20 BF4 maps

you can run from one end to the other in BF4 in about 5 min walking

on a jet you can fly across in 20 sec at most if you take that into consideration then 3 to 4 BF4 maps its probly 1min fly its quite Small for a ship if you ask me

Edit : think about how long it takes you to fly from your spawn to the enemy that not very big at all

WoW has simple static Maps, it's not difficult to create such a big world.

But this carrier is a flying world with a size of 3 or 4 Battlefield maps.

This world can yaw, pitch, roll, strafe in 1x1x1 Billion km environment with 200m/s.

This world can fire with lasers and missiles on 4 or 5 other worlds with the same size when it moves with 200m/s.

Most of the added goals were not for the initial release but future patches, planetary landing and procedural generation for example. These are now being built into the game from the ground up which will result in a better experience, rather than having them bolted in and causing massive headaches in a released game.

Whining was maybe a bit strong, all I'm saying is constructive criticism is far better than "why isn't the game out yet, you promised it much earlier". When Chris said two years, I thought he was having a laugh but I'm also well aware of the delays all he previous games faced largely due to his micro management and quest for perfection.

By the way don't hold your breath, waiting on Sq42 coming this year. As much as I want it as well, I'm not expecting to see it until mid 2017, hopefully C.I.G. will prove me wrong come Citizencon.

@-CC-: I don't think S42 makes 2016 either. Skipping E3 was a huge red flag to me. They were on invitation so it was absolutely free press, which would have been HUGE especially for a game that makes its money on kickstarter donations.

What do you do in this game?

A whole crap ton of different things.

It's a fighter combat sim. It's a FPS. It's an exploration game. It's a narrative-driven Wing Commander like game. It's a mining game. It's a pirate game. In the Persistent Universe, there are going to be at least a dozen different career paths you can take that all have unique gameplay... while still interacting with people who play different careers.

Well it looks like I won't be playing it. Sounds like the kind of game that would ruin my life.

@neobone2 said:

@panda30 said:

not really impress all it is it's a big playing field

a smal island on WoW map can be consider 10 to 20 BF4 maps

you can run from one end to the other in BF4 in about 5 min walking

on a jet you can fly across in 20 sec at most if you take that into consideration then 3 to 4 BF4 maps its probly 1min fly its quite Small for a ship if you ask me

Edit : think about how long it takes you to fly from your spawn to the enemy that not very big at all

WoW has simple static Maps, it's not difficult to create such a big world.

But this carrier is a flying world with a size of 3 or 4 Battlefield maps.

This world can yaw, pitch, roll, strafe in 1x1x1 Billion km environment with 200m/s.

This world can fire with lasers and missiles on 4 or 5 other worlds with the same size when it moves with 200m/s.

dude look at your big Bengal Carrier sure bigest driveble ship but its not even 1 BF4 map

truth is // its no biger then bf1 blimp

@panda30: If the blimp was about 1000m in length in game then I would agree with you.

Actually I think the Blimp would probably only be about the size of the One of the engines on the side of the ship there.

Hermits need to go back to salivating over the scraps that fall of of Xbox's plate instead of constantly reminding everyone how embarrassingly behind schedule this turdtastic Ponzi scheme has fallen.

Hey you changed your profile pic. Awesome.

@panda30: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/important-update-to-the-community-code-of-conduct--32888986/#1

Read #1.

Why 3-4 times bigger? Why not 5-6? There's an obvious advantage there.

Still ahead than the Last Guardian and the new Dad of Bore, both have been longer in development and have only showed a scripted trailer. Remain butthurt.

Big ships like these are one of my main hype things for this game. The Bengal looks glorious.

@panda30: That model besides being unfinished is not the real scale of the Bengal Capital Ship, that was just a Easter egg they let from their tests, its not even there any-more.

Just for scale comparisons, The little ship you see flying in the movie is the M50.

Starfox Zero is already doing the stuff Star Citizen claims as revolutionary. It also doesn't stream the game world, it just exists.

@Heirren: What "stuff Star Citizen claims as revolutionary" is done in Starfox Zero?

"It just exists". You mean the entire level is preloaded into memory like pretty much every other game out there. You don't need to stream the world if the assets are small enough fit into memory at once.

Star Citizen and other large scale, open world games, rely on streaming because there is not enough room in memory to fit all of the assets.

Starfox Zero is a pretty typical game doing nothing new on any front. Star Citizen's innovations come with its localized physics grids that allow players to walk around in moving ships in an online environment without desync. Star Citizen's data structures that organize how the world is stored in memory allows for full procedurally generated planets and literally billions of kilometers of space. When paired with streaming, you can theoretically have an endless sized universe to explore without ever running out of RAM.

But will the game be fun?

It already is a lot of fun in an extremely unpolished state with very little to do. It can only get better as the systems all start coming into play and the framerate increases to something acceptable.

@Wasdie:

Starfox does that. It is enormous. There are physics. The scale seems to go unnoticed. You can walk on other moving game objects. I can't think of another game with such scale. For example, the cruiser ships are comparable inize to the entire boat in Uncharted 3, if not bigger.

While you're inside a ship in Starfox are there other players on the ship at the same time, doing different things like taking off from it, landing on it or multiple other players dog fighting around it (the limit has not been determined yet but they're looking at a 100 or more players in an instance) that you can watch through a window of the ship you're on (or shoot at if you're controlling a turret). Do the ships range from 10m to in excess of 1000m in length, all with crews of 1 to 10 people? Is the playable map size 400 Quadrillion cubic kilometres with planets, moons, asteroids belts, and multiple space stations with a variety of different roles that can all be landed on, walked around and/or fought over in first person?

I'm asking because I've not played Starfox nor have I paid it any attention to it what so ever. I really have no idea if it is truly comparable to Star Citizen or not. If it is, then that's really cool and would likely justify the cost of buying a Wii U just for that game alone.

@GarGx1:

Yes. Not on the same scale but the technology is there in the form of the little nintendo droid.

This game is going to flop hard. Hermits always laugh at Sony cinematic games, but Star Citizen is the very definition of putting all focus on creating a tech demo and not a great game.

The technology is not the same. When you're walking inside of one of those cruisers (which I don't even think you can), can it go upside down relative to the world around it and your character still be standing up?

A large map is nothing new to video games, neither is streaming. WWII Online, a game from 2001, has a 350,000 km^2 map to play on, Elite Dangerous has fully explorable, procedrually generated planets and capitals ships 2-3 kilometers in size.

What makes Star Citizen special is how objects are contained in one another. This allows for Skyrim level of object interaction in the interior of these ships and on the surface of planets while the game world is absolutely massive. It also allows for ships to have their own gravity field and for players to seamlessly enter and exist the fields. Streaming is not new, but it's what ties all of the maps and planets together so you never see a loading screen.

In Star Citizen two ships can be hovering over each other and players on both ships could look up at each other and wave without falling down, because they are within their ships local physics grids. The object container system allows a player to physically pick up an object in the world space and move it to any other location in the game. Unlike Skryim, these objects aren't tracked by a single processor, but are tracked locally to their container which may have its own server hardware dedicated to it to keep up with the demand.

This means you could have 50 players inside of a ship having an FPS battle while another 50 players are outside flying around. Their systems allow hardware to scale to the object container level and down the trees. This means a ship could have 3 separate servers tracking its internals while the ship exists in a 4th server's tracked worldspace as it flies through the galaxy. Players and tracked objects can seamlessly transfer between these servers and even interact with the other servers (you can snipe people from one object container with its own tracking from another).

No game uses this kind of technology.

HOW AM I TROLLING what i cant post my opinions now? am sorry I have logic and I can prove what I stated and is not the first time I get ban for having opinions

you cant claim trolling on something I am proving how about you do your job and answer my peticion that been sitting there for a weak unanswer on ASK MOD'S FORUM

now if this is not proof enough don't know what is the only difference is that a SC ship have an interior and as some are subjesting that this version is not final build that remins to be seen so till the official ship its out you cant claim that I am trolling base on your favoritism for the game

so go on and ban me again because you can't take difference of opinion

@panda30: Scale cannot be judged from two separate videos, neither with a set scale, especially a static cap of that. Any person with an ounce of 3D graphic rendering understands that. Furthermore actual size in a 3D environment is irrelevant. You can make an object as big or as small as you want. A 6 polygon box could be 10,000 kms wide and tall but still is only 6 polygons large. Real life distance units do not exist in a 3D world. It's all arbitrary units that the developers assign a set scaling too.

Since your argument is based on "evidence" that cannot possibly be used to prove any sort of a point, you're obviously just trolling.

This isn't an difference of opinion, this is you showing you don't understand the the fundamentals of 3D graphics and thus are not even remotely qualified to start an argument on the subject matter.

Ok with your response I had to go have a look at Starfox, I'd buy a Wii U tomorrow if it was even half of SC. Quite frankly, I now realise you're trolling. Starfox is absolutely nothing like Star Citizen. It's a single player third person, on rails shooter. In what way is that anything even remotely close to SC or even slightly similar to any of the questions I asked? You'd be closer comparing CoD to Star citizen, at least that's multiplayer.

Starfox does not have people going about their individual tasks inside of a 1000m long space ship while a battle with other people rages outside. The tech involved in Starfox is completely basic, it would likely run on a tablet, for a modern game and doesn't come close to being innovative or ground breaking.

What the fvck are you talking about. Lol. Have you owned/played any system/game other than the ones made by Nintendo?

think about what your saying

""Since your argument is based on "evidence" that cannot possibly be used to prove any sort of a point""

base on this you can't prove i'm wrong nider SO HOW AM I TROLLING like I say before you have some favortisim for this game and you can't take difference of opinion

that dont make me a troll also if you watch the video you can see the small ship going by a city witch unless the bildings on that city are of the size of earth that puts that ship about the same size of a real world jet

its call The Relativity of Physical Size in modern physics the only problem here is proving that planets buildings are relative size to earth bildings if I had all the time in the world i can probably actually prove the size of that ship relating that human vs that ship and that ship to the carrier

and that ship M50 is about the size of a jet

and this shows it close enof to cast a shadow witch means its about half of its owne size away from it

so yea I can pretty much deduct it to about the size of a battleship if you call that trolling then whatever I porve my point here in witch case I DONT HAVE TO BE CORRECT TO HAVE AN OPINION if I was trolling I would say something ridiculous like it's about the size of a bike and and leve no prove you just cant take difference of opinion

@GarGx1:

It isn't only on rails. Everything abides by the games physics. Things are still occurring in the game world at all times regardless of the players position.

@Cloud_imperium:

Yes of course. Nintendo, Sega, xbox, PlayStation, and was very big into pc gaming from 1995ish to 2004ish.

@panda30: The largest airship ever built was the Hindenburg with a total length of 245m.

The USS Enterprise class Aircraft Carrier, the largest carrier ever built, is 342m in length. Here's a list of the largest ships on the planet, the longest being 458m

The Bengal carrier class is 1000m. That's almost 3 times the length of the largest terrestrial aircraft carrier.

Do you see where your estimations of scale are failing here?

See @Wasdie's reply and maybe you'll understand why and how Starfox doesn't come close to what's going on in Star Citizen, even the Baby persistent universe that's available in the alpha, just now, is far more advanced.

@panda30: Your "argument" is based on your own persona perception, not measurable units within a 3D space. That is not an argument and does not even merit a response to the attempt at the point you're trying to make with extremely flawed evidence.

You continue to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about in terms of scale and size within a 3D environment and are trying to argue along your misguided logic. You can not be taken seriously and thus nobody could make a response to you since you're talking literal nonsense.

In fact you're so off base with your attempt at arguing, I believe you're just trolling this thread to derail it, which is a violation of Rule #1.

If I am understanding you correctly, this statement is incorrect. Scale can be derived from relation to known objects' sizes.

I'd actually like to see them move around the ship that's the size of 4 battlefield maps instead of these panning camera shots of the hangar.

That's not what physics are within the context of a game engine.

It's very possible that the game is using a physics engine to calculate collision between objects. I highly doubt movement of the objects in the world is being driven by mechanisms on the physics level of the game engine (where a thrusters simulate X amount of thrust which then pushes the objects forward). Very few games have the need for a fully simulated physics driven motion system. Games that use it are usually games like racing sims and flight sims. Arcade games don't need that level of physics simulation to drive objects in the game world. It's an unnecessary complication in the development.

As for what you're saying, this is pretty standard affair for a single level loaded in memory. In the vast majority of games out there, all objects in the game world are loaded into memory and are being tracked by the CPU. Stuff you can't see is still happening even if it's not rendering. That's nothing fancy. Games have been doing things that way for decades and it's fine for 99% of games out there.

In a large scale single player game, a lot of abstraction can be used to simulate the results of encounters rather than playing the encounter out in real time. For example in the Total War series, when the CPU fights battles they don't go into the game world and march units and fight. Rather the outcome of the battle is determined by plugging all of the variables of the unit types, numbers, bonuses, armor values, weapon values, weapon types, general skill, and battlefield into a big algorithm and have that algorithm output the result. It's much more efficient for a result that is "close enough".

I don't think Starfox is that large where it needs to abstract stuff you can't see. Tracking a few dozen NPCs isn't anything difficult.

Games like Star Citizen and other MMOs are tracking so many objects, it's impossible for a single CPU to handle tracking everything. Furthermore it's a complete waste of network bandwidth and CPU time to have each client sync up with every single object in the game. So what they did for Star Citizen is break things up so that the processing can be distributed on different CPUs. You can assign a system's space to a CPU while assigning another CPU to track the guts of one of these massive ships inside of the first CPU's space. The CPU tracking the world only sees the outside of the ship while the CPU tracking the inside of the ship doesn't know what's going on outside of it unless messages are sent directly too it (like the ship takes fire and takes damage). These two CPUs can pass data between each other on demand and clients can gather data from multiple CPUs at a time (which is how players can transfer seamlessly between the inside of the ship and outside space), but they aren't actively tracking the objects in each other's space, except for the CPU tracking space sees a single ship object that is the entire large ship. This greatly reduces how many objects each CPU has to track.

There is no point for Starfox to do any of that. It's way out of the scope of the game.

You don't know the objects sizes from the videos unless they are explicit said in each video. They aren't in either. We don't know the size of the planes or blimp in the BF1 footage, and we don't know the exact model length of the Bengal carrier in the SC video. We only know the length of the M50 in world space. That's not enough to draw up conclusions from the videos, which he is trying to do.

We do know from history that biplanes were pretty stubby and that zeppelins weren't much over 300 meters in length. We also do know from what CIG has said that the Bengal is over 1 km in length. It's pretty safe to say the Bengal is a lot larger than the zeppelin.

@Wasdie:

Starfox controls like a sim. There's weight to every object in the game.

It is very reminiscent of games like Mario 64, wave race, and fzerox--where there is a fully realized game world in play with its own set of rules.

@Heirren: Just because it has weight doesn't mean it's a sim.

There is no reason the game needs a full sim where movement is done on the physics level. Where you program your thruster to output X amount of thrust and program an entire flight computer to adjust all of of the maneuvering thrusters so that you can control your direction.

Star Fox does not do that.

@Wasdie:

It does more than you give it credit for. It has the most intuitive controls for a flight game within 3d space.

look

ok sir do you know the size of a human in ralation to this ship? look at the guy he is equal or taller then the ship it self

i don't need a ruler to see this ships its about the size of a jet if anithing a jet is much biger it requres help to ge in

base on that

and if you watch my video as the ship flys by the carrier the front ligths hit the ship

at this point it is a few feet away from it almost crashing into it

picture below is a small carrier battel ship its about the same size maybe a littel biger not 3 to 4 MP BF4 maps MAYBE the final build will be biger but as in now it is not that big

@panda30: Stop derailing this thread with your nonsense. Last warning.

Just for your information, that 2014 video with the M50 and the low LoD version of the Bengal never even made it into final production. It was leftovers from the original prototype back in 2012.

If you're going to make any sort of argument, you should at least know what you're talking about first.

how am I derailing when I am talking about topic your just piss off because your a fanboy of this game AND CANT TAKE DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS

as far as the video 2012 - 2016 dont matter the ship its not out and thats the only in game video of it TILL THE FINAL VERSION is out i'll talk on facts available not wisfull thinking

and quit treating me you abusing your moderator privileges you can't dictate my opinions on the matter

1) I am on topinc witch is the ship bieng bigest

2) I have proven my comments WITCH I DONT HAVE TO its an opinion get over it

3) if I am doing something wrong point it out and quit treating me OPINIOS ARE NOT TROLLING Specialy when I am pointing out fact if the fact I posted chang once the ship is officialy out then sure difrent facts difrent day

@panda30: Dude, it's the size of 3 -4 BF maps because of the interior. Single BF map, with 3-4 floors. That's why it's 3-4 maps, not 3-4 maps in length.

There is in game footage in the latest Reverse the Verse 100.2.

The comparison with the blimp is just absurd, the blimp would be about 5 times the size of the m50 in all likelyhood.

@panda30: Did you even read my reply? That video you keep posting does not represent the size of the ship I posted in the OP. Stop mixing stuff, besides it will not even be the biggest ship in the game.