4 ms·

I personally think a more likely explanation of this move is that they are nowhere near completion and need a good 'technical excuse' for pushing deadlines way

I personally think a more likely explanation of this move is that they are nowhere near completion and need a good 'technical excuse' for pushing deadlines way into the future. Then everyone begins debating the technical issues rather than the timetabling and funding issues.

scrollaway 10y ago
There is seriously something wrong with this community whenever a Star Citizen article comes up. Did you even click the link at all before coming up with your conspiracy theory? This is a reply to a question that mentions, in passing, that for simplicity sake they are DROPPING ONE OF THE TWO targets they are CURRENTLY supporting. This is not "we need excuses to push deadlines", this is "we're cutting something to speed up development", with explanations accompanying it. And that aside, HN of all communities should appreciate the level of transparency and technical insight CIG gives to their backers. Like the one in the post here. That you did not click because you were too busy coming up with "technical excuses".
- random_comment 10y ago
  Hello, thank you for your comment. I've followed the Vulkan/DX12 issue on and off over the last year for SC as I am an early backer. Given that they only first approached the question of Vulkan in 2016, and as recently as a few months ago were still in blackout as to the level of support: e.g. https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6522297/#Comment_6522297 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment... then https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_news_on_dx12vulcan_support/ https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_new... I am not persuaded that this is as simple a matter as dropping one of two equally well-developed branches. Generally speaking, moving from a mature high-level API (especially one which the underlying game engine/architecture is heavily tied into) to a less mature low-level API tends to mean refactoring work and extra implementation work, as well as a whole new bunch of bugs and testing. I would agree that pursuing only Vulkan or only DirectX is probably smarter than pursuing both simultaneously in terms of a faster delivery. I also think in terms of cross-platform development and performance it will be better to use Vulkan (for any game). However, the introduction of Vulkan is a relatively recent event in the history of SC development (see above), saying 'we're only going to support it now' might actually be saying 'a rewrite (or substantial refactoring) of the game started last year, which we are now owning up to'.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I'll give you that the two branches may not necessarily be in the same state but I can guarantee you that, if they previously had in mind supporting both and are now down to only support one, it's a great relief in development efforts. As to whether it's a good decision, it's a different and very hard to tell matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this. These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to really be informed on whether it is. For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments. Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc. I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better" attitude when they clearly don't have al the variables and know it themselves. I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed </rant>
    - random_comment 10y ago
      Can you explain to me the difference in practice between 'a rewrite of an existing code base from language A to language B' versus 'Saying you will support language B as well, dropping language A after a while completely, then announcing you are going to try to complete it in language B' Because I am not sure I perceive a large semantic difference. I happen to agree with an earlier post suggesting that if you want to run off with the money, then this kind of thing is a pretty good way of creating noise and cover instead of results. Also: can you please stop shitting on the HN community with your posts and keep to the topic? I get that you want to rant for some reason, but it would be better for us all if you did it in notepad or emacs rather than here.

scrollaway 10y ago

There is seriously something wrong with this community whenever a Star Citizen article comes up. Did you even click the link at all before coming up with your conspiracy theory? This is a reply to a question that mentions, in passing, that for simplicity sake they are DROPPING ONE OF THE TWO targets they are CURRENTLY supporting. This is not "we need excuses to push deadlines", this is "we're cutting something to speed up development", with explanations accompanying it. And that aside, HN of all communities should appreciate the level of transparency and technical insight CIG gives to their backers. Like the one in the post here. That you did not click because you were too busy coming up with "technical excuses".

random_comment 10y ago
Hello, thank you for your comment. I've followed the Vulkan/DX12 issue on and off over the last year for SC as I am an early backer. Given that they only first approached the question of Vulkan in 2016, and as recently as a few months ago were still in blackout as to the level of support: e.g. https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment/6522297/#Comment_6522297 https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/comment... then https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_news_on_dx12vulcan_support/ https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/53qsy5/any_new... I am not persuaded that this is as simple a matter as dropping one of two equally well-developed branches. Generally speaking, moving from a mature high-level API (especially one which the underlying game engine/architecture is heavily tied into) to a less mature low-level API tends to mean refactoring work and extra implementation work, as well as a whole new bunch of bugs and testing. I would agree that pursuing only Vulkan or only DirectX is probably smarter than pursuing both simultaneously in terms of a faster delivery. I also think in terms of cross-platform development and performance it will be better to use Vulkan (for any game). However, the introduction of Vulkan is a relatively recent event in the history of SC development (see above), saying 'we're only going to support it now' might actually be saying 'a rewrite (or substantial refactoring) of the game started last year, which we are now owning up to'.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I'll give you that the two branches may not necessarily be in the same state but I can guarantee you that, if they previously had in mind supporting both and are now down to only support one, it's a great relief in development efforts. As to whether it's a good decision, it's a different and very hard to tell matter. I find it a little absurd though how much input people have into this. These decisions matter only in context; you need to be familiar with a lot of the technical background on the game itself and its ongoing development to really be informed on whether it is. For context: I work with Blizzard games a ton. I'm extremely familiar with Blizzard, their teams, the work that goes on there; nature of my job. I also frequent the subreddits where armchair programmers and game designers think they can outsmart the devs by throwing random buzzwords in the comments. Everybody thinks they know better, thinks they know how to manage a community of millions to tens of millions, thinks they know how to ship AAA games, etc. I see a very similar pattern on HN with CIG because CIG is (far) more transparent than your average studio. And I just wonder (this is a general statement, not only about your comment) why people adopt this "I know better" attitude when they clearly don't have al the variables and know it themselves. I've seen this in every single thread about SC. People here see a kickstarter project taking a long time and start yelling their own startups' platitudes like "release early release often" that aren't applicable to game dev the same way. Every time I expect better and every time I'm disappointed </rant>
  - random_comment 10y ago
    Can you explain to me the difference in practice between 'a rewrite of an existing code base from language A to language B' versus 'Saying you will support language B as well, dropping language A after a while completely, then announcing you are going to try to complete it in language B' Because I am not sure I perceive a large semantic difference. I happen to agree with an earlier post suggesting that if you want to run off with the money, then this kind of thing is a pretty good way of creating noise and cover instead of results. Also: can you please stop shitting on the HN community with your posts and keep to the topic? I get that you want to rant for some reason, but it would be better for us all if you did it in notepad or emacs rather than here.