3 ms·

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 firs

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
    Really, I'm the one shitting on people? You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy. What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah that's a much better plan than just making a game. Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper. Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a platform than "rewriting everything".
    - random_comment 10y ago
      This forum has rules about how to talk to other people in the forum. I feel you are ignoring them in terms of how you talk about me and other HN users. Have you read the forum guidelines? "You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy." I claimed no such thing and I do not enjoy your hyperbole. In my experience when announcements are made and timetables shifted, it comes from higher up. As for 'the most transparent game studio of all time'. Really? I think perhaps you should have followed the Numenera/Torment or Elite crowdfunded projects as a point of reference on that, you would likely have a different opinion. "What does "running off with the money" even mean?" I can only presume you have never funded an unsuccessful kickstarter project. I've funded several. They all followed an identical pattern of projects scope / platform changes and dozens of premature 'about to ship, just 1 more month' optimistic updates from CEOs. Generally 'running off with the money' means taking the money and not delivering a product. In the case of kickstarter, usually using a long series of excuses along the way. It does not literally need to mean catching a flight to some far-off country with the money. Often the money is simply spent while people post misleading updates about the progress of the project. Then the final update: "Sorry, we thought we could deliver. But we can't". I honestly can't see a difference between what's happening with this projects and the other projects that failed, nor any difference in the communication style, content and frequency. Winning projects don't usually look like this. Numenera didn't. Elite didn't. "Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper." Again, you're just being rude and hyperbolic. If you think a kickstarter project involving repeated delays over a period of years - which turn out to be CEO deception about project viability - is 'questioning the moon landing', then you are perhaps naive about crowd funded projects. I am not insulting you by saying this. I simply mean it literally: from what you're saying, it seems you don't know what crowdfunded projects are like. I do. I've wasted plenty of money on them. http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-you-think-twice-abo-1639106912 http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-you-t... http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-failures-of-2015-1747957776 http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-failu... I hope star citizen does not turn out to be pie in the sky, partly because the world needs good space sims and partly because I put my own money on the line. However, projects that suddenly announce changes of this magnitude when they ought to have delivered something years ago, often turn out to have other underlying problems that prevent their ultimate success. Star Citizen has undergone multiple changes of project scope, changes of technology platform, never-ending delays, and it is hard to believe that this is the result of the kind of management that wants to deliver a good product on time and is capable of doing it. I also funded Elite Dangerous as a kickstarter backer, and I consider it to be a good example of good project management. I have had the pleasure of playing it for years.

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
  Really, I'm the one shitting on people? You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy. What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah that's a much better plan than just making a game. Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper. Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a platform than "rewriting everything".
  - random_comment 10y ago
    This forum has rules about how to talk to other people in the forum. I feel you are ignoring them in terms of how you talk about me and other HN users. Have you read the forum guidelines? "You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy." I claimed no such thing and I do not enjoy your hyperbole. In my experience when announcements are made and timetables shifted, it comes from higher up. As for 'the most transparent game studio of all time'. Really? I think perhaps you should have followed the Numenera/Torment or Elite crowdfunded projects as a point of reference on that, you would likely have a different opinion. "What does "running off with the money" even mean?" I can only presume you have never funded an unsuccessful kickstarter project. I've funded several. They all followed an identical pattern of projects scope / platform changes and dozens of premature 'about to ship, just 1 more month' optimistic updates from CEOs. Generally 'running off with the money' means taking the money and not delivering a product. In the case of kickstarter, usually using a long series of excuses along the way. It does not literally need to mean catching a flight to some far-off country with the money. Often the money is simply spent while people post misleading updates about the progress of the project. Then the final update: "Sorry, we thought we could deliver. But we can't". I honestly can't see a difference between what's happening with this projects and the other projects that failed, nor any difference in the communication style, content and frequency. Winning projects don't usually look like this. Numenera didn't. Elite didn't. "Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper." Again, you're just being rude and hyperbolic. If you think a kickstarter project involving repeated delays over a period of years - which turn out to be CEO deception about project viability - is 'questioning the moon landing', then you are perhaps naive about crowd funded projects. I am not insulting you by saying this. I simply mean it literally: from what you're saying, it seems you don't know what crowdfunded projects are like. I do. I've wasted plenty of money on them. http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-you-think-twice-abo-1639106912 http://gizmodo.com/7-crowdfunding-fails-that-will-make-you-t... http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-failures-of-2015-1747957776 http://gizmodo.com/the-9-most-disgraceful-crowdfunding-failu... I hope star citizen does not turn out to be pie in the sky, partly because the world needs good space sims and partly because I put my own money on the line. However, projects that suddenly announce changes of this magnitude when they ought to have delivered something years ago, often turn out to have other underlying problems that prevent their ultimate success. Star Citizen has undergone multiple changes of project scope, changes of technology platform, never-ending delays, and it is hard to believe that this is the result of the kind of management that wants to deliver a good product on time and is capable of doing it. I also funded Elite Dangerous as a kickstarter backer, and I consider it to be a good example of good project management. I have had the pleasure of playing it for years.