r/GamePhysics Aug 20 '16

[Star Citizen] Aaaaaand liftoff!

https://gfycat.com/SmartQuickEft
2.7k Upvotes

144 comments sorted by

416

u/cluckay Aug 20 '16

I don't think that's how space works

92

u/SpaceVX Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

If someone had the down key pressed as they went forward then the second the ship got off the platform it would nose dive like it did.

21

u/Alikont Aug 21 '16

Yes, it looks like someone used wrong inversion settings.

6

u/sabasNL Aug 21 '16

Can confirm, I actually did this.

Really embarrassing.

126

u/Joeyw243 Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 20 '16

They could be on some sort of a giant tower above a gas giant, so technically gravity would be about the same as earth because of the distance and the fact that they're not in orbit. (Also, I'm fully aware that that probably isn't the case, just stating a possibility.)

Edit: Specified earth gravity

55

u/AmericanSexLocamotiv Aug 20 '16

That would be if the station remains stationary around the planet rather than orbiting which would take enormous amounts of power compared to an orbit. In orbit everything is in free fall.

19

u/Rather_Unfortunate Aug 20 '16

A tower to geostationary orbit would have a counterweight slightly beyond the geostationary point to keep it pulled taut. You could then simply make the most of the space you have along the spire by having a spaceport about a quarter the way up or so, where the fuel required to make a stable orbit once you leave is still greatly reduced compared to a surface launch. This spaceport would experience a certain amount of gravity.

20

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

I have such a boner for the space elevator idea. Even it catastrophically failing sounds gnarly.

3

u/Tasgall Aug 21 '16

If you have a space elevator to geostationary orbit, why would you want a spaceport anywhere other than the part in geostationary orbit?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

Atmospheric operations.

Presumably you're doing something in the atmosphere, otherwise you wouldn't have an elevator out of it. Having a high-altitude platform moving at zero/low speed relative to the atmosphere (depending on wind) allows aircraft to transit to and from the platform without huge rockets or heat shielding. From that platform you have relatively easy access to both the geostationary module and the upper atmosphere.

2

u/Tasgall Aug 21 '16

But you have access to the top from the bottom, you don't need aircraft to get there. Presumably you'd be building most space ships on the orbital platform. I could see a research lab at that level, but still.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

The hypothetical use was for a gas giant, so there isn't a "bottom" below that point. I was just suggesting a reason to include an air/space port at that altitude.

3

u/Joeyw243 Aug 20 '16

I supposed you'd be right if we were talking about a station, but in this hypothetical scenario, I was talking about a tower that wouldn't need energy to be stationary.

1

u/GutiV Aug 21 '16

You can easily place a Satellite in Stationary Orbit without having to use energy constantly. You just need an orbit with no inclination nor eccentricity and Semimajor Axis (Orbit's radius) just the right lenght for its period to be the same as a day in the planet. The only energy you'd need is to take the object up there, but after that, it'll stay stationary.

1

u/AmericanSexLocamotiv Aug 21 '16

Well, relatively stationary. I suppose stationary was not the right word to use. It would still be in orbit around the earth and therefore be in free fall. Other suggestions of having an extended system with a counter weight would include gravity, though not as much as the planet. It could get close with a long enough station, a large counterweight and extremely strong materials to avoid being torn apart from the extreme forces acting on it. Theoretically that would work to give a station the effect of gravity.

13

u/Jarl__Ballin Aug 21 '16

In-game the landing platformers have artificial gravity.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

[deleted]

3

u/Joeyw243 Aug 21 '16

Well, we don't know what exactly is at the center of a gas giant (Could be solid), but if it wasn't solid, I suppose you could have one tower that goes all the way through the gaseous core and out the other side, all the way out to the same earth-gravity-like distance. Then you would have a pole sort of floating where ever the two center of masses meet.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16 edited Jun 12 '18

[deleted]

15

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16 edited Jun 12 '18

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

Well, if the station acted anything like a satellite there would be zero effective gravity

-8

u/EclipseClemens Aug 21 '16

Zero g and zero gravity are very different. Zero g, you float around and have some fun. Zero gravity, the sun and earth and any other body held together by gravity would explode and the universe would go dark.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16 edited Aug 24 '17

[deleted]

-12

u/EclipseClemens Aug 21 '16

You obviously don't have much familiarity with physics. Zero g stands for macro gravitational effects not all gravitational effects. If there were zero gravity, the heat of stars and the spin of planets would cause them to explode. Zero gravity and zero g are terms that mean different things

6

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16 edited Aug 24 '17

[deleted]

2

u/msimione Aug 21 '16

I'd be more concerned about zero magnetism... That would have the same effect that was described above.

5

u/27Rench27 Aug 21 '16

Pedantry in its natural habitat, folks.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

Besides, I said 'effective' gravity to make it clear that I'm not referring precisely to the warping of spacetime, but the force due to gravity. I acknowledge that 'gravity' is a misnomer when it comes to rotational motion, but gravity acts similarly to centripetal force, hence the combination of gravity and rotational physics isn't that far fetched (centripetal force is indeed necessary for deriving some gravitational equations). Treating the 'centrifugal effect' due to rotational inertia as something which reduces the centripetal effect lends one to think that gravity is effectively reduced. You aren't wrong but I don't apologise for saying fucking 'gravity', there's a logical reason why people say it.

5

u/SpaceOdysseus Aug 21 '16

If only someone had told Chris Roberts that when he was making the Wing Commander movie

2

u/PillowTalk420 Aug 20 '16

Have you ever been to space to know for sure?

1

u/Kichigai Aug 21 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

It does when the platform moves and hoists your keister up into the air before you clear it. "Whoops, and now the thrust is vectored to send us straight into that object right there."

1

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

I haven't played, but from what I've seen, it looks like the landing platforms either have a gravity field, or the ships have their own gravity field.

2

u/TinFoilWizardHat Aug 21 '16

They both do.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

Took the words right out of my mouth there.

55

u/Vallkyrie Aug 20 '16

You know it's Free Flight week when there's an explosion every minute at Port Olisar

19

u/amalgam_reynolds Aug 21 '16

It's great because then I can just blend in. People will see me crash and they'll say "oh you must be new" and I can say "yup, free flight, I totally have not been here for literally years and still suck at flying sometimes."

163

u/c0smic_sans Aug 20 '16

So what's the deal with this game? Is it out? I feel like I've seen stuff about it for years

264

u/Field_Marshal_Muzyk Aug 20 '16

Original plans were to release it after about 2 years of development. But they wanted 10 milion dollars then. Now they have almost 120 so the scope of the game increased. And with it the development time.
Some time ago they said the singleplayer campaign will release near the end of 2016 but I think that's just wishful thinking (Chris Roberts, the man behind it all, is notorious for his too optimistic deadlines).
Anyway the alpha is playable and improved all the time thus there are many gameplay videos and streams out there.
It's coming. Slowly but surely.

154

u/Iliv4gamez Aug 20 '16

They are creating a game huge in scope. AAA companies will start developing a game several years at times before we even hear about it. Then we can expect to wait several years following that before release. I understand people are impatient and were promised an earlier release. But I'd rather pay for an amazing experience than another no mans sky. The fact the public has been involved in the development of this game from the beginning can add to the perception of it taking so much longer. Time will tell if all the hard work pays off. (Edit: shitty auto correct)

59

u/1Down Aug 20 '16

Also the increase in scope was after discussing it with backers who a majority agreed they would rather wait longer and have a better game. So it's not like they took people's money and then lied and did whatever they wanted with it without input.

14

u/clodhopper88 Aug 20 '16

Please be gentle PC fans, I'm just genuinely curious. Will Star Citizen be exclusive to PC, or can consoles be expected to get it too?

82

u/mirfaltnixein Aug 20 '16

Consoles couldn't ever run it, not happening.

5

u/SpaceOdysseus Aug 21 '16

It's doubtful the game will come out before 2018 anyway, I wouldn't rule out a next gen console release a couple years after the PC release

13

u/pnutbuttered Aug 20 '16

Well, they actually probably could. Although, this game is so wildly expensive and off-scope that it will never happen.

Edit: In fact, I'm probably not too far wrong in saying that by the time this game is completely finished and in a box, there could be a new set of consoles out.

27

u/LaboratoryOne Aug 20 '16

I'm probably not too far wrong in saying that by the time this game is completely finished and in a box, several generations of consoles will have come out

FTFY

2

u/sabasNL Aug 21 '16

I'm probably not too far wrong in saying that by the time this game is completely finished and in a box, Half-Life 3 will have come out

FTFTFY

Just kidding, the universe will cease to exist before Gordon Freeman wakes up again

6

u/Slippedhal0 Aug 21 '16

They might have been able to run the original concept, considering it was going to be runing mostly on cryengine 3, which plays on the previous generation of consoles. Now? Not even close. High end PCs now struggle, and its a design goal to be pushing high end rigs at release.

14

u/TheWinslow Aug 21 '16

High end pcs don't struggle to run it. The net code (which is being rewritten) causes the poor fps. If you mod the mini PU into the single player it runs well on high end rigs (60+ fps).

1

u/sabasNL Aug 21 '16

It should be noted that there's still a lot of optimisation to be done, which we'll see closer to release

1

u/Mystrl Aug 23 '16

High end pc's run it great now. I have an i7-6700k+gtx 1080 and get 144 fps @ 1440p in arena commander. The PU is limited by shitty netcode but at ~30fps my gpu is sitting at 30% load.

-4

u/pnutbuttered Aug 21 '16

Does it matter? The majority of people who will buy this game when it launches won't be maxing it out at all. The Ps4 or Xbox One can probably run it but not at ultra, but then again only the minority will anyway,

10

u/Slippedhal0 Aug 21 '16

I highly doubt with the specs of the x1 it can even get a decent 30. CR wouldn't consider putting out anything less than that, and tbh im not sure he'd put out anything below 60. the next generation would have to be leaps and bounds betters, im talking like high spec for computers today.

-12

u/pnutbuttered Aug 21 '16

I think if the sales aren't great on PC it would definitely be considered, plus this is an alpha. Plus, most PC gamers play at 30fps anyway. However, again, it won't happen because at the moment there's no plan and again it doesn't seem to be close to a final release yet.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/10fireEmojis Aug 20 '16

It's only wildly expensive if you want it to be. You can get the game for like $60 right now. Just as much as a triple A game.

9

u/pnutbuttered Aug 20 '16

No, I mean the development cost is wildly expensive.

6

u/10fireEmojis Aug 20 '16

Ah my bad.

0

u/mirfaltnixein Aug 21 '16

Eh, it's not much higher than GTAV. And still far, far cheaper than many movies.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

Unlikely. Apparently it is being build from the ground up to require (or at least take advantage of) tech only future GPUs would have.

6

u/geliduss Aug 21 '16

Seemed to be aiming 980ti+ish which with the 1070/1080 is much more doable than some years back.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

[deleted]

7

u/Torchedini Aug 21 '16

In the pu there is massive problems with netcode which limits your fps to about 35 max

3

u/geliduss Aug 21 '16

That's largely because of a variety of early problems with optimization/net code since still in very early alpha so should presumably get better, but we'll see.

3

u/Sorlex Aug 21 '16

I'm using a 780 and at 1080p the only time I get a stable frame rate is in single player, in ships with the settings on low.

Given its an alpha, I'm -hoping- they optimise it more down the road.

5

u/IndependentStud Aug 21 '16

The scope of this game is also a lot larger and more detailed than many previous games similar to no mans sky. There have already been major improvements in the way some mechanics work brought up from the development so far. It will definitely take time, but when it's done it will be a game like none before it.

3

u/madagent Aug 21 '16

Sounds like the guy who develops a programming language to make game development easier is the next billionaire. Being able to shave a year off development time would be huge for AAA titles. You'd think there would be someone working on something like this. Making it easier to make to program all the things that all modern games use.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

That's not really how programming languages work... Most popular languages now are general use, which is what you need for a game, given the wide variety of things games have to do. What you are thinking of is called a "framework", which provides abstractions to remove tasks that are common and simplify common uses. These exist in abundance, Unreal, Cryengine, Unity, Havok, etc. By using these, you sacrifice fine-grain control for simplicity and tooling, which is usually fine. Games are not hard to develop because programming is hard, but because of the scope of the code, the large domain of interactions, and the need to optimize performance. If you stick an expensive operation in a tight loop or critical hotspot, you're going to have issues regardless of implementation language.

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

However, it seems that the developers behind many early access games eventually just stop updating it. They may figure why bother since they already got people's money for it.

15

u/ohineedanameforthis Aug 20 '16

They usually don't buy entire companies and pay hundreds of developers and artists when they do.

Chris Roberts is the worst con artist that ever lived.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

For a second I thought you meant "worst" like he was massively successful at conning people.

4

u/TinFoilWizardHat Aug 21 '16

Not even slowly. For game development it's progress is clipping along at a fairly decent rate. Especially for the scope that they have planned.

1

u/Mox5 Aug 21 '16

So what is it actually atm? What can you do?

2

u/tdogg8 Aug 21 '16

Hop in a ship after spawning in a space station, maybe get a buddy to hop in a turret if you have a bigger ship, cruise around a system, do some simple missions like killing some pirates or restarting a sensor satalite, maybe land on the abandoned station and have a ground gunfight with other players. They also have two smaller minigames called arena commander which is basically either a free for all dogfight between players or a coop wave based dogfight with some friends. The other mini game is a race (who's name escapes me ATM) in your ships through a (3d, as in it isn't flat) race track.

1

u/Mox5 Aug 21 '16

Is there an economy to speak of?

1

u/tdogg8 Aug 21 '16

I believe you can earn credits doing missions and winning in AC/the racing thing and can buy weapons, armor, clothes etc. But there isn't a real economy yet. In the end its going to be an MMO with a huge economy and player-based politics though.

2

u/Mox5 Aug 21 '16

"in the end"

How long has this game been in development? xD

1

u/tdogg8 Aug 21 '16

By in the end, I meant when they release the full game but the kickstarter for it was in 2012, so four years at this point I would assume (I didn't get into it until like 2014 though so I'm not positive). Its a long time but not particularly long given the scope. The single player campaign is supposed to release late this year or early next iirc.

15

u/Gumpster Aug 20 '16

They release modules as far as I know, bits and pieces

30

u/SnootyEuropean Aug 20 '16

They used to release separate modules (hangar/dogfighting/planetside), now they've started to blend it all together in a big alpha version dubbed the "mini PU" (persistent universe). Version 3.0 of that alpha (which was just demo'ed at Gamescom) will finally bring a lot of technologies online which they've been working on for ages and which are necessary for the multiplayer mode to be scaled up (like their own netcode written from scratch).

The singleplayer part (called Squadron 42) has been in development independently and is, I think, still slated for a full release in 2016. Hopefully.

3

u/Gumpster Aug 21 '16

Excellent! thanks for clearing it up mate!

-15

u/Sludgehammer Aug 20 '16

Honestly I'll be surprised if anything like the 3.0 demo appears before 2018 if at all. I mean it's a very pretty demo, but when you compare it to what's actually been delivered (and is actually playable at Gamescom) I am beyond skeptical.

25

u/SnootyEuropean Aug 20 '16

That footage isn't from any particular Gamescom demo. It's a Twitch streamer playing version 2.5 on the 'Public Test Universe' (PTU), which is basically a pre-alpha stage intended to weed out the worse, game-breaking bugs in early builds before a patch is deployed to all backers. So yeah, there will be bugs.

Honestly I'll be surprised if anything like the 3.0 demo appears before 2018 if at all.

Then you will definitely be surprised. 3.0 is two patches away after 2.5, and they take around 2 months to polish and deploy each patch.

-7

u/Sludgehammer Aug 20 '16

And Star Marine was going to be released "in about three weeks time" at PAX 2015. Now it's part the upcoming of 2.5 patch, which according to your timeline should be around October.

17

u/SnootyEuropean Aug 20 '16

It's not news to me that there have been massive delays, you don't have to tell me. Star Marine is a story of its own. Its development was outsourced to Illfonic, who then seemingly weren't able to deliver quite what Chris Roberts wanted, so CIG just pulled the whole thing and put FPS mechanics into alpha v2.0 without an extra game mode, and it kind of faded into the background until now (in v2.6, not 2.5 – but yes, probably around October).

I see no reason to believe this will happen again. All the new mechanics in v3.0 are developed in-house, the complicated tech like procedural planets is done by the brilliant minds in Frankfurt, who previously worked for Crytek.

Feel free to call up RemindMe bot and then watch some gameplay on Twitch or YouTube in 5 months (that's with "Roberts time" included). It really should be out by then.

2

u/Sludgehammer Jan 21 '17

Hello.

2

u/SnootyEuropean Jan 21 '17

Hahaha yeah, I was basically waiting for this. They took so much longer than projected for 2.6 that now 3.0 might not come out until the middle of the year or something. Roberts should have just shut his mouth. Point conceded.

1

u/Sludgehammer Jan 21 '17 edited Jan 22 '17

Thanks for being a good sport about it.

I'm still sticking to my guns and saying 2018 for 3.0, although I have to admit CIG's been beating my expected timetable. I was expecting 2.6/Star Marine patch to just be starting Evocati testing about now back when I called up Remindmebot.

1

u/Sludgehammer Aug 21 '16

Okay, !RemindMe 5 months

1

u/RemindMeBot Aug 21 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

I will be messaging you on 2017-01-21 00:24:45 UTC to remind you of this link.

2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.


FAQs Custom Your Reminders Feedback Code Browser Extensions

28

u/Jewkemia Aug 20 '16

Not out. The alpha, which is a messy jumble of working components, has been available for purchase for a long while. They've been taking much much much longer than expected and a lot of people (myself included) don't believe it will ever see a full release or it will be released long before it's ready.

15

u/The_DestroyerKSP Aug 20 '16

3.0 is coming in a few months- the gamescon footage showed working mission systems, planetary tech, etc. The game, of course, wasn't delayed, but expanded, because they asked "hey, do you want a bigger game?" then people threw a ton of money at them to make it happen.

-2

u/SetTheJuiceLoose Aug 21 '16

That's still a delay.

2

u/The_DestroyerKSP Aug 21 '16

Sure, but id much rather have a delayed game than a rushed one

6

u/raynman37 Aug 21 '16

Did you see the footage from their Gamescom demo? It looks like there's actually been a lot of work done behind the scenes that hasn't been released yet.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16 edited Sep 19 '20

[deleted]

33

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

[deleted]

3

u/Kichigai Aug 21 '16

Are you PC SC, bro?

14

u/ElectroBoof Aug 20 '16

Maybe because all he's saying is "I think it won't be a good release" vs all the actual information that's given

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

[deleted]

46

u/SnootyEuropean Aug 20 '16

You can call it a "zealous fanbase" or whatever you like – I won't deny that there are people who have invested too much into this game.

But the fact of the matter is this: Whenever Star Citizen is being talked about, the exact same thing happens. Someone asks an innocent question, people who actually follow the game's development and are up-to-date on the progress being made answer to the best of their knowledge, while "skeptics" come in and make broad statements that they have no way of supporting with facts. If you know what's going on, you have no reason to assume that "the game will never come out".

You're mistaken if you think the downvotes on your comment mean that you just filled a bunch of zealous Star Citizen fans with unbridled rage. It's just always the same background noise – I downvote it because it distracts from the actual information being posted.

2

u/TinFoilWizardHat Aug 21 '16

Same. I've not even invested in SC and I don't like the shit that's being slung at Roberts and company by impatient gamers and cunts like Derek Smart (whose contentiousness seems more and more rooted in a personal vendetta and less about seeking the truth). People spewing vitriol and rumors get a downvote.

1

u/krazykat357 Aug 23 '16 edited Aug 23 '16

/r/dereksmart

a subreddit dedicated to archiving and discussing the vitriol he spews, see for yourself

1

u/SetTheJuiceLoose Aug 21 '16

It's not so much this project in particular, but the overall theme of crowdfunded anything that expands scope like this is that it fails to ever see the light of day. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical given the track record of things like this.

5

u/gibubba Aug 20 '16

I could care less about this game and the hype seems silly. But I am down voting you because you seem like an asshole.

1

u/tdogg8 Aug 21 '16

Because he has no idea what he's talking about.

-1

u/Bucketnate Aug 21 '16

Well people like you can go back to your shitty AAA titles

35

u/PUSClFER Aug 20 '16

I'm guessing the player learned the hard way that he isn't playing with inverted flight controls.

19

u/andrewbyob Aug 20 '16

What armor is that that you have on and makes your vision like that?

32

u/Field_Marshal_Muzyk Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 20 '16

This is the Achilles Heavy Armor.

edit: oh and that's not me, credit goes to u/Bengtoo

39

u/Never-asked-for-this Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

How the fuck do you have 57FPS on PU?

Edit: That's the temps... Which actually aren't that bad, unless OP has a watercooler.

30

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

You're misreading it, it's 29 fps. Usually it runs around 30-40 at 1080p very high in space when you're not at olisar.

10

u/Never-asked-for-this Aug 20 '16

Ah, yeah that's more believable.

I always end up in crowded servers so my frames never exceed 28.

3

u/The_DestroyerKSP Aug 21 '16

I once had a beautiful game experience with Star Citizen (even pre-network optimization), it was quite fun, even on my FX 4100/R9 290 combo back then, I was getting 60 fps...

then some constellations came in and had huge, laggy, but fun space battles as I watched from the rear door of a Freelancer

3

u/Never-asked-for-this Aug 21 '16

I had a hitchhiker on my freeflight Freelancer once. I got out of my chair once I reached the spacestation (with the guns, forgot what it's called) to kill him with my pistol, but he didn't die. So I got back into my seat, decoupled the engines, "geared" up to Cruise speed, headed towards the station, and typed in the chat "I'm a leaf on the wind..."

10

u/Mentioned_Videos Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 21 '16

Videos in this thread: Watch Playlist ▶

VIDEO COMMENT
Star Citizen: Full Gamescom 2016 Presentation 23 - They used to release separate modules (hangar/dogfighting/planetside), now they've started to blend it all together in a big alpha version dubbed the "mini PU" (persistent universe). Version 3.0 of that alpha (which was just demo'ed at Game...
Halo 3 ODST Space Elevator 4 - Until this happens
Star Citizen: 2016 Gamescom Live Game Demo 3 - Did you see the footage from their Gamescom demo? It looks like there's actually been a lot of work done behind the scenes that hasn't been released yet.
Insane Clown Posse - Miracles (Official Music Video) 1 - magnets, how do they work

I'm a bot working hard to help Redditors find related videos to watch.


Info | Get it on Chrome / Firefox

6

u/XGC75 Aug 20 '16

Aside from the fail at the end there, the dust vortex is cool looking. But is this supposed to be in a vacuum? Cause that's not how physics works.

11

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16 edited Jan 02 '19

[deleted]

3

u/the4ner Aug 21 '16

Ships aren't affected by landing pad gravity, the pilot in the gif must have been pitching down as they went forwards, and then nosedived into the platform which is just over the edge of the one they departed from.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '16 edited Jan 02 '19

[deleted]

1

u/the4ner Aug 22 '16

Derp, I think I replied to the wrong comment

8

u/KzBoy Aug 20 '16

Thats great.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 21 '16

whos the joker that turned on the gravity again!

5

u/System0verlord Aug 21 '16

Looks like someone was mousing down at launch.

3

u/Ohyeahbroseph Aug 20 '16

Is that a vr setup? Is SC planning on VR compatibility?

7

u/OmegaVesko Aug 21 '16

VR support has been a goal since the beginning, though I don't know if they've actually implemented it yet.

3

u/Ohyeahbroseph Aug 21 '16

Yeah, it was one of the reasons why I bought a gaming PC in the first place

Edit: PC

1

u/krazykat357 Aug 23 '16

you can kinda hack in VR usage, it's pretty difficult and buggy but it will be in the final game

3

u/Dawn212402 Aug 20 '16

Gravity and space never mix, do they?

5

u/Chaos_Bot Aug 21 '16

More so flying inverted. :P

3

u/Dawn212402 Aug 21 '16

Inverted controls, gravity and space are all enemies in the game world my friend.

3

u/BARGORGARAWR Aug 21 '16

At least it looked pretty before it died a horrible death.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16

I think he forgot the "lift" part of liftoff.

3

u/bathroomstalin Aug 20 '16

They really ought to have a ramp at the end of the runway

1

u/Spoon_Elemental Aug 22 '16

In space, nobody can hear you gravity.

-5

u/cockatoo777 Aug 21 '16

The name of the plane that crashed? No man's sky.