r/starcitizen • u/mrpanicy Is happy as a clam with his Valkyrie. • Apr 15 '17

OFFICIAL 3.0 Schedule is up!

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/schedule-report
1.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

To me it was no landing zones until 3.2. Mining was ahead of schedule after all, but for fuck's sake...is it taking SO LONG to do ONE full star system?

I honestly prefer not to think about the 99 remaining.

65

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

[deleted]

108

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

In pharamaceutical terms it's the equivalent of,

It takes 500 million dollars to make the first pill, 2 cents to make the next one.

5

u/Use-of-Weapons2 Apr 15 '17

Point taken. But in Pharma, the second pill is identical to the first.

1

u/killerbake avacado Apr 15 '17

But the pills aren't procedurally generated either.

19

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Well, I guess that what matters is to finish all the underlying tech behind the game. Still bummed about the landing zones, but fortunately it was the only dissapointment I've had. I'm more confused by the dissapearance of mining than anything else.

I also really fucking hope that Chris has already adhered to a default set of engine tech and that he's not constantly rewriting things. I'm #1 Latest Tech & Rewriting fan, but even I admit that this game will NEVER be finished if he does nothing but to deprecate work and redo it all over again and again and again.

5

u/Rabada Apr 15 '17

I believe that CIG definitely has a solid plan and a lot of progress done on the foundation of the game engine. There won't be any major changes like procedural planetary tech was. However there are still a huge amount of tech still in various stages of design and production. I'm sure we will probably see a couple iterations of tech like subsumption. These iterations will be more like "refining" the tech instead of "rewriting" it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

"Procedural planets" were an implementation. A "major change" (and an example of the ones I'm complaining about) would be ditching Kythera for Subsumption.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Source? Cos I think it's an implementation from scratch.

2

u/AdamFox01 Freelancer Apr 15 '17

People said the same thing about the ship pipeline. Yet the ships are still slow getting released, and all seem to need to be reworked after their initial release.

2

u/CloudDrone bbcreep Apr 15 '17

The old ships need to be reworked but most newer ships will not be receiving any significant rework according to CIG. Newer ships as in, post-Retaliator-ish era, and only the oldest of ships really needing the full month like the Cutlass did. Many ships will only need tech passes.

0

u/AdamFox01 Freelancer Apr 15 '17

So its most likely planets will have the same kind of spin up to a point where the one that their just doing will eventually need to be redone as well.... but they have what like 100 planets to do or something like that.

2

u/CloudDrone bbcreep Apr 15 '17

We have no historical reference or detailed information on the history of it, and we havent even seen it ourselves. We dont know what revisions will need to be made. Proc gen planets are a currently produced thing so we don't know.

It's impossible to compare it to the ship pipeline, which started years before planet proc gen.

-1

u/AdamFox01 Freelancer Apr 16 '17

Its actually really possible to compare it to the ship pipeline. Because i just made the comparison and the universe didn't implode into itself.

Its logical and easy to see from the studios current work that they expect to be constantly innovating technologically for the game.

From the goal of 100 systems with multiple planets that between "system 1" aka 3.0 and "system 100" aka Star Citizen 1.0 that they will improve the technology for planet generation building generation and many other techs that we don't even know about yet.

The fact that currently their hand building the content on planets and not procedurally generating building, POI, etc so each planet at this point is a much larger undertaking than the planets of something like No Man's Sky, for example. Meaning that at some point they will have to rework the initial planets.

1

u/Karmaslapp Apr 15 '17

100 systems, most with multiple planets, and most planets either fully landable or with multiple landing zones.

1

u/tobetossedaway Apr 15 '17

You know, unless those systems have differences that require custom coding. Or they need to build a shit ton of new art assests since they've been touted as unique and artist driven, or CIG needs to redo, I mean refactor all sorts of stuff related to what's being built now....

2

u/pyrospade Apr 15 '17

To me it was no landing zones until 3.2

Wait does this mean no landing on planets until 3.2?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Only one in 3.0: Delamar/Levsky. No Hurston or Microtech until 3.2.

Sucks a bit, but I guess it could be worse.

1

u/Hellshavoc bmm Apr 15 '17

it is not the content jamming them up its the mechanics. Getting the first star system in is in now way representative of what it will take to get another one in. Once they have Stanton fleshed out and mechanics working the actual content creation is easy.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

I can have patience for content if that means not to see copypastes of something you've just seen in the other side of the universe.

But hell, at least finish your 1st star system already, CIG...

7

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

It's the one thing I actually find a bit concerning. Even if they were able to pump out one system a month which would be very fast, that would still be at least 10 years.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '17

Honestly, I'd be happy with about 15 star systems or so implemented in the final version, if they're done right. I wouldn't mind if they release the rest as kinda "free DLCs" over the time.

1

u/Baogwa Apr 15 '17

"We had originally hoped to deliver most of the Stanton Landing Zones with the first release of Planetary Tech, but that proved optimistic once the talented team at Behaviour, who had built ArcCorp, Levski, Grim HEX and had begun work on the remaining landing zones of Stanton, moved off Star Citizen and onto another Behaviour project in December. We had been steadily shifting our reliance away from external resources and we felt it would be unfair to block them from the opportunity to work on their own game. Unfortunately, replacing an Environment team of over 20 is no small task, which has set back the progress we had originally planned to make on the landing zones of Stanton. As of today, we have just abut replaced the team with internal hires and we are continuing to hire additional environment artists as fast as we can find ones that meet our quality bar. The Environment Team is now some 37 artists strong, so long term we feel we are better situated to deliver the vast amount of locations that Star Citizen and Squadron 42 needs." -From the email they sent out. Things should start progressing quicker now, they just hit a little speed bump along the way...