Jump to content
VoA

Persistent Universe (PU) - Star Citizen - 3.x +

Recommended Posts

The upcoming locations have gotten me really excited... ArcCorp looks amazing and the Microtech artwork is just something to marvel at.
Once they have all the locations in the stanton system done, I hope they just fill up this system with more mission givers, implement and polish the upcoming gameplay mechanics and make it a more well-rounded experience before they open up that Jumppoint wormhole to the Pyro system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Narcto@Narcto Seeing more and more recent UE4 footage as well as other projects using this to create photorealistic environments, I am really curious what came out of the R&D into this tech, especially regarding the usage for the procedural environment tech. Have you guys found a way to use this in SC? And if not are there other plans to increase the quality of terrain generation when it comes to steep cliffs, overhangs, real canyons etc and therefore to minimize the usage of tons of assets to immitate such rough terrain?

Divi@divi-cig

The cleanup work needed to make scanned assets work for the planetary tech and procedural placement, especially with the updates we are currently working on, made us decide to pursue other approaches for producing better looking assets for the PU.

Thanks for replying. But as far as I understand, the overall time needed to create an asset from scratch, similar to the detail that you can get with an photogrammetry asset, is drastically lowered by using this tech. DICE claims for example that it cut their needed time in half.

So, one more question I would have is: Do you even plan on getting such detailed assets into SC and do you have a better method for it? Or are such detailed assets not planned and photogrammetry therefore just not the right tool to create them?

we are currently exploring a pipeline with houdini to generate full sets of shapes/sizes of better looking rocks that fulfill all requirements we have that make them usable with our procedural placement tech. they will be made for the new organic shader which will result in better looking rocks regardless, even if the houdini approach were to fail(unlikely) and we have to sculpt them the traditional way (ZBrush, not talking about actual clay here :D). so yes, we do have plans to get better looking assets into the game. details are a different topic though - photogrammetry assets with the same resource constraints that our procedurally placed assets need to be created with do look.... less spectacular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Pharesm
      Those in Concierge may have noticed Third's topic on the $0 CCU removal having backfired completely, by formulating the database operation incorrectly.
      Some $0 CCUs that originally cost money before pricing changes were removed
      A lot of $0 CCUs that were free, now have a value due to price changes and have been left on accounts.
       
       
    • By Nord
      I'm curious, what is the average salary for a developer at CIG?
      Doing a quick google search the lowest is around $44k a year to $120k a year for a game developer. This is in the US. CIG has multiple studios around the world which also differentiate the average income. Let's say the average across all studios is $60k a year (a "wild" guess) and they now have around 500 employees. That's $30 million each year.
      Do we know how much CIG has used on salaries since 2012? I don't know the math here since I don't know all the numbers, but my wild guess would be around $80-90 million since 2012. If you add properties and other costs I'm thinking we are around $130 million in total. Giving them a $70 million + buffer, which is a 2 year salary guarantee for those 500 employees.  
       
      If this is even close, I feel comfort in knowing the funding is still going strong and they have at least 2 years to finish it up if money stops flowing. 
       
    • By VoA
      Reduced price for five game packages (free fly event) = Time to get your friends into SC for cheap 😃
        See https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge/game-packages
      GAME PACKAGES
          All Sort by: PriceName   AURORA MR STARTER PACK 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $35.00 USD$45.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART MUSTANG ALPHA STAR CITIZEN + SQUADRON 42 COMBO - 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $55.00 USD$65.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART AURORA MR STAR CITIZEN + SQUADRON 42 COMBO 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $55.00 USD$65.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART

      MUSTANG ALPHA STARTER PACK 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $35.00 USD$45.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFOADD TO CART

      RELIANT KORE SC STARTER 3.2 FREEFLY- Package $75.00 USD$85.00 USDSAVE$10.00 USD IN STOCKMORE INFO
       
    • By VoA
      Star Citizen Development Process Interview Summary
      Inside the Star Citizen Development Process Full Article | https://wccftech.com/inside-the-star-citizen-development-process-exclusive-interview/
       
       
    • By Gremlich
      and some highlights:
      Refutation of CryTek's Claims
       
      Claim: CIG was only given permission to make "the game" with CryEngine, selling SQ42 standalone is in violation of this.
      Defense: The GLA defines "the game" as both "'Space Citizen' and its related space fighter game 'Squadron 42'", with a passage allowing for name changes (Space Citizen > Star Citizen).
      Additionally, this term does not apply to any games made without CryEngine, and CryEngine is no longer used.
       
      Claim: CIG violated the GLA by switching from CryEngine to Lumberyard, they are only allowed to "exclusively" use CryEngine.
      Defense: The GLA says they are given "exclusive rights to use CryEngine" and the right "to exclusively embed CryEngine in the game". The well-established meaning of this wording is that the right is given only to them (and those subcontracted within the terms), not that they are only allowed to use CryEngine.
       
      Claim: CIG is no longer displaying CryTek copyright notices in game, in violation of the GLA.
      Defense: This obligation only applies if CIG is using CryEngine, which they are not.
       
      Claim: Ortwin was employed by CryTek prior to becoming CIG's attorney and co-founder so he had a conflict of interest when negotiating the contract.
      Defense: Ortwin received a signed waiver from CryTek dismissing any conflict of interest.
       
      Claim: Confidential source code was shown on Bugsmashers and disclosed to FaceWare in violation of the GLA.
      Defense: No defense provided, though FaceWare was after the switch to Lumberyard.
       
      Claim: CIG was required to provide any bugfixes they developed for CryEngine up until launch.
      Defense: No defense provided.
       
      Additional Statements
      The GLA prohibits either party from seeking any damages from one another "except for intentional acts or omissions or gross negligent acts".
      CIG, not RSI, is the signatory of the GLA, so CryTek committed a legal blunder by pursuing RSI rather than CIG in a number of claims.
      CIG seeks to have the entire complaint dismissed with prejudice (barring any further related action) on the grounds that none of the complaints are sufficient.
×
×
  • Create New...