Dude... i just see 2 minor things and 4 more delays for another other 4 minor things... moving pretty slow... delays all over the place.
The bigger things are also the late deadlines, as one would expect.
There are at least 9 more weeks.
Do you honestly believe they will hit release in the 9 weeks? And if by some miracle they do release 3.0 in 9 weeks it will probably be a very pared down version of the claims they were originally making
Like you imply, obviously these "estimations" don't actually mean anything. If they can mis-estimate over half of their estimations, what point does an estimation serve? After all, according to you, "they are only estimations." There is no reason why anyone should expect them to meet their goals. Estimations, according to you, are meant to be broken. This only means that their schedule is actually bullshit.
I miss over 90% of my own estimations about how long my trip to work takes, but last time I was late was is November.
Estimations rarely hit bullseye, and you should not expect nor demand them to hit bullseye. You should only expect them to be reasonably close and only complain if they are missed by a lot. Not treat them like deadlines. Deadlines are different thing.
That's not to say that Star Citizen wouldn't have given us plenty reason and them some more for how they've totally failed to meet many of their estimations over the years. But if you extend your complain to every estimation that gets missed a bit, and thus to something that's completely normal, you just devalue the good argument that you could make.
If you've given yourself extra buffer time to prevent yourself from being late and, as you imply, you haven't been late... Then you're really still keeping a subconscious, conservative estimate of the time it takes to get to work. Just because it isn't exactly the number you picked outta your head doesn't matter; you've built in the necessary buffer time to ensure, in essence, you meet the "deadline" imposed upon yourself.
What you're submitting with that analogy is that Chris is knowingly setting unrealistic timelines for the public while keeping a more realistic one in his head. That would be blatantly misleading the crowd that's funding you.
These estimates don't have "buffer time" - estimates can but these don't. From the notes that go with the schedule:
IV. Internal schedules, the ones you will now be privy to, tend to have aggressive dates to help the team focus and scope their tasks, especially in the case of tech development. Every team, even a team blessed with the kind of support and freedom you have allowed us, needs target dates in order to focus and deliver their work.
And internally that is how you (try to) run schedules. Lots of reasons. Workflow is one but fundamentally you want to let the people running the overall schedule to add the contingency - otherwise you get contingency on contingency. If the bod doing something adds 20% and the bods running the schedule add 20% at the top level the result is a 44% contingency. Possibly a lot more if you have a multi-tiered schedule. Messes up your estimates of how much you need to fund the project as well.
They could manage the schedule aggressively. And have "deep dives" before they release any updates. This would put a lot of pressure on the teams however and/or require a lot of effort (a serious amount of effort). It wouldn't help get the game made however and people would still bitch.
So they have said that they are not running to hard targets. So slippage is to be expected. Always. No slippage means people are padding estimates!
What you have to look at is the "end date" - in this case the date for 3.0. Have they declared a slip? And currently the answer is no. So they are still "on plan".
Now maybe that's because people who have moved to other tasks are still doing version 3.0 stuff just in a different order. It may be because contingency has been allowed at the top level - the people running the schedule looking at how good the teams estimates are and then they make the allowances. Build in "float".
Just how it is. Its part of the job. And we won't know how good the top level end-June estimate is until nearer the time.
Edit: And if you look at the top level schedule you will see that some activities have "float". Completion of AI is down for he end of May - so it has a month's float for example. Whilst the "long tent pole" as its sometimes called is "Network".
Because you completely misunderstand what you want to misunderstand.
Have fun
Haha not at all, I can just see the pent-up frustration you hid within your words that's all. As you say, every xmas looks good (until they miss yet another xmas deadline...)
Because you completely misunderstand what you want to misunderstand.
Have fun
Haha not at all, I can just see the pent-up frustration you hid within your words that's all. As you say, every xmas looks good (until they miss yet another xmas deadline...)
And another misunderstanding.
What you do is called "projection" .... projecting your frustration onto others.
I am perfectly happy with the progress of this project. I have said it many times before here ... i do not care when the game launches - what is important to me is that it is complete, tested, optimized and polished.
Because you completely misunderstand what you want to misunderstand.
Have fun
Haha not at all, I can just see the pent-up frustration you hid within your words that's all. As you say, every xmas looks good (until they miss yet another xmas deadline...)
And another misunderstanding.
What you do is called "projection" .... projecting your frustration onto others.
I am perfectly happy with the progress of this project. I have said it many times before here ... i do not care when the game launches - what is important to me is that it is complete, tested, optimized and polished.
What you do is called "projection" .... projecting your frustration onto others.
I am perfectly happy with the progress of this project. I have said it many times before here ... i do not care when the game launches - what is important to me is that it is complete, tested, optimized and polished.
Every X-mas looks good ;-)
Have fun
Haha Erillion, it's not a misunderstanding at all. I know exactly what you meant and I know exactly what I am trying to do. I am just "having fun" with your choice of wording and the way it could be interpreted.
That's all there is too it
I believe this is where I am meant to insert a why_so_serious.jpeg
P.S Stop telling me to have fun and then getting antsy when I have fun....
Estimated release of patch 3.0 moved from June 29th to date range between June 29th and July 12th
GAMEPLAY: -Item 2.0: Radar System: Completed on schedule -Item 2.0: Quantum Drive: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th -Atmospheric Entry Support: Completed on schedule
GRAPHIC: ETA moved from June 2nd to June 15th -Render to Texture: ETA moved from May 24th to June 15th -Atmospheric Entry: Completed on schedule
UI:ETA moved from June 6th to June 28th
New UI Goals added: -Vehicle Cystomizer App: "customize ship via the ship customization screen, so edits can be done without locating the exact port on the ship" -Ship Selector App: "replace the ship selection terminals within the Persistent Universe, allowing players more freedom in spawning ships at designated locations" -Heavy Armor for Star Marine: "Heavy armor will be enabled for selection within the Star Marine loadout customization menu" -Insurance: "With this first implementation of insurance, when a player’s ship is destroyed they will be able to request a replacement version from their insurance provider" Many of the existing dates were moved around and changed because of the new goals added: "UI schedule has undergone some significant changes to accommodate some new features designed to enhance the player experience"
BACKEND: -Solar System Shop Services: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th
NETWORK: ETA moved up from June 30th to June 19th
New Goal: Persistent Data Refactor "The expanding capabilities of persistent data to support gameplay features in 3.0.0 has required the Network team to work on this refactor" ETA: June 19th
Stretch Goal abandoned: Network Bind/Unbind Has been moved out of 3.0.0 to make way for Persistent Data Refactor
SHIPS & WEAPONS: -Misc Prospector: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th -Apocalypse Arms Scourge Rail Gun: ETA moved up from June 14th to June 8th -Klaus and Werner Gallant Rifle: ETA moved from May 18th to May 25th -Arrowhead Sniper Rifle: ETA moved from June 1st to June 8th -Ksar Devastator-12 Shotgun: ETA moved from May 25th to June 8th
New Goal: Persistent Data Refactor "The expanding capabilities of persistent data to support gameplay features in 3.0.0 has required the Network team to work on this refactor" ETA: June 19th
Stretch Goal abandoned: Network Bind/Unbind Has been moved out of 3.0.0 to make way for Persistent Data Refactor
Is there any more information as to what the persistent data refactor entails and why it is necessary to implement before networking binding/unbinding?
New Goal: Persistent Data Refactor "The expanding capabilities of persistent data to support gameplay features in 3.0.0 has required the Network team to work on this refactor" ETA: June 19th
Stretch Goal abandoned: Network Bind/Unbind Has been moved out of 3.0.0 to make way for Persistent Data Refactor
Is there any more information as to what the persistent data refactor entails and why it is necessary to implement before networking binding/unbinding?
No more information available on schedule report than what I already quoted.
I don't think it's necessary to do it before Network Bind/Unbind, but it's likely needed for some other features on 3.0.0, and causes so much work they had to delay one of their stretch goals to some future patch.
Is there any more information as to what the persistent data refactor entails and why it is necessary to implement before networking binding/unbinding?
Yeah what @Vrika said, also seems due the need for 3.0 to face that refactor on persistent data they had to reassign who was working on network bind/unbind.
Minding their comments on hiring network engineers they don't seem to have a team big enough to handle the network front without rationing resources attm.
I wonder if it shall not be better to delay 3.0 further to tackle in the network rewrites over releasing 3.0 sooner but with worse network performance.
I wonder if it shall not be better to delay 3.0 further to tackle in the network rewrites over releasing 3.0 sooner but with worse network performance.
Was it ever confirmed about network bind/unbind or was it still speculation from the community?
Was it ever confirmed about network bind/unbind or was it still speculation from the community?
It was confirmed, there are 3 Stretch Goals for 3.0: - Delamar landing zone > Still a stretch goal - Mobiglass Overhaul > Now confirmed needed for 3.0, no longer stretch goal. - Network Bind/Unbind > Moved out of 3.0 and replaced with another network refactor that became a necessary dependency for the next update.
I guess they are tackling 3.0 into placeholder network code, to avoid delaying it for as long the multiple network rewrites are taking to complete.
Was it ever confirmed about network bind/unbind or was it still speculation from the community?
It was confirmed, there are 3 Stretch Goals for 3.0: - Delamar landing zone > Still a stretch goal - Mobiglass Overhaul > Now confirmed needed for 3.0, no longer stretch goal. - Network Bind/Unbind > Moved out of 3.0 and replaced with another network refactor that became a necessary dependency for the next update.
I guess they are tackling 3.0 into placeholder network code, to avoid delaying it for as long the multiple network rewrites are taking to complete.
No I meant about what network bind/unbind will do for the game performance wise.
No I meant about what network bind/unbind will do for the game performance wise.
Whelp for who understands something of this, the network bind and unbind is meant to update entities near you, what happens right now is that you are getting updates from entities all over place. That is one colossus of extra and unnecessary updating that cost resources that mean more lag, and our frame-rates are affected when the servers aren't performing well.
In a simple way, the current way, when one NPC spawns in Yela, you at Port Olisar are getting that update, so getting rid of that will save a lot of CPU time for the servers.
The biggest improvement, however, is the one that is scheduled for completion in 2018, the object container streaming, up until the point multiple servers can support one game world.
There's a bunch of stuff that will accumulate to what will make the PU perform as intended, a lot of work to do on this front, most of it, post-3.0.
No I meant about what network bind/unbind will do for the game performance wise.
Whelp for who understands something of this, the network bind and unbind is meant to update entities near you, what happens right now is that you are getting updates from entities all over place. That is one colossus of extra and unnecessary updating that cost resources that mean more lag, and our frame-rates are affected when the servers aren't performing well.
In a simple way, the current way, when one NPC spawns in Yela, you at Port Olisar are getting that update, so getting rid of that will save a lot of CPU time for the servers.
The biggest improvement, however, is the one that is scheduled for completion in 2018, the object container streaming, up until the point multiple servers can support one game world.
There's a bunch of stuff that will accumulate to what will make the PU perform as intended, a lot of work to do on this front, most of it, post-3.0.
Thanks. that what I was kinda figuring from what I was seeing in the threads
3.0 is scheduled to include Entity Update Component Scheduler which should help with framerate. This feature simply gives less updates for objects that are farther away from your position. It is not quite as useful as network culling but it will save a considerable amount of server CPU time and bandwidth.
Comments
Do you honestly believe they will hit release in the 9 weeks? And if by some miracle they do release 3.0 in 9 weeks it will probably be a very pared down version of the claims they were originally making
On 2.6, the delay from the estimate on the schedule was 2 weeks off:
So considering that and the scale of 3.0, it's possible it could delay further than that, but we will have to wait and see as for how long.
Christmas is ALWAYS looking good.
Have fun
Because you completely misunderstand what you want to misunderstand.
Have fun
IV. Internal schedules, the ones you will now be privy to, tend to have aggressive dates to help the team focus and scope their tasks, especially in the case of tech development. Every team, even a team blessed with the kind of support and freedom you have allowed us, needs target dates in order to focus and deliver their work.
And internally that is how you (try to) run schedules. Lots of reasons. Workflow is one but fundamentally you want to let the people running the overall schedule to add the contingency - otherwise you get contingency on contingency. If the bod doing something adds 20% and the bods running the schedule add 20% at the top level the result is a 44% contingency. Possibly a lot more if you have a multi-tiered schedule. Messes up your estimates of how much you need to fund the project as well.
They could manage the schedule aggressively. And have "deep dives" before they release any updates. This would put a lot of pressure on the teams however and/or require a lot of effort (a serious amount of effort). It wouldn't help get the game made however and people would still bitch.
So they have said that they are not running to hard targets. So slippage is to be expected. Always. No slippage means people are padding estimates!
What you have to look at is the "end date" - in this case the date for 3.0. Have they declared a slip? And currently the answer is no. So they are still "on plan".
Now maybe that's because people who have moved to other tasks are still doing version 3.0 stuff just in a different order. It may be because contingency has been allowed at the top level - the people running the schedule looking at how good the teams estimates are and then they make the allowances. Build in "float".
Just how it is. Its part of the job. And we won't know how good the top level end-June estimate is until nearer the time.
Edit: And if you look at the top level schedule you will see that some activities have "float". Completion of AI is down for he end of May - so it has a month's float for example. Whilst the "long tent pole" as its sometimes called is "Network".
Haha not at all, I can just see the pent-up frustration you hid within your words that's all.
As you say, every xmas looks good (until they miss yet another xmas deadline...)
And another misunderstanding.
What you do is called "projection" .... projecting your frustration onto others.
I am perfectly happy with the progress of this project. I have said it many times before here ... i do not care when the game launches - what is important to me is that it is complete, tested, optimized and polished.
Every X-mas looks good ;-)
Have fun
ROTFLMAO!!! Projection. :-)
I was just about to post the same thing.
~~ postlarval ~~
Haha Erillion, it's not a misunderstanding at all. I know exactly what you meant and I know exactly what I am trying to do. I am just "having fun" with your choice of wording and the way it could be interpreted.
That's all there is too it
I believe this is where I am meant to insert a why_so_serious.jpeg
P.S Stop telling me to have fun and then getting antsy when I have fun....
https://fat.gfycat.com/CooperativeUnequaledIslandwhistler.mp4
Estimated release of patch 3.0 moved from June 29th to date range between June 29th and July 12th
GAMEPLAY:
-Item 2.0: Radar System: Completed on schedule
-Item 2.0: Quantum Drive: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th
-Atmospheric Entry Support: Completed on schedule
GRAPHIC: ETA moved from June 2nd to June 15th
-Render to Texture: ETA moved from May 24th to June 15th
-Atmospheric Entry: Completed on schedule
UI: ETA moved from June 6th to June 28th
New UI Goals added:
-Vehicle Cystomizer App: "customize ship via the ship customization screen, so edits can be done without locating the exact port on the ship"
-Ship Selector App: "replace the ship selection terminals within the Persistent Universe, allowing players more freedom in spawning ships at designated locations"
-Heavy Armor for Star Marine: "Heavy armor will be enabled for selection within the Star Marine loadout customization menu"
-Insurance: "With this first implementation of insurance, when a player’s ship is destroyed they will be able to request a replacement version from their insurance provider"
Many of the existing dates were moved around and changed because of the new goals added:
"UI schedule has undergone some significant changes to accommodate some new features designed to enhance the player experience"
BACKEND:
-Solar System Shop Services: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th
NETWORK: ETA moved up from June 30th to June 19th
New Goal: Persistent Data Refactor
"The expanding capabilities of persistent data to support gameplay features in 3.0.0 has required the Network team to work on this refactor"
ETA: June 19th
Stretch Goal abandoned: Network Bind/Unbind
Has been moved out of 3.0.0 to make way for Persistent Data Refactor
SHIPS & WEAPONS:
-Misc Prospector: ETA moved from May 5th to May 12th
-Apocalypse Arms Scourge Rail Gun: ETA moved up from June 14th to June 8th
-Klaus and Werner Gallant Rifle: ETA moved from May 18th to May 25th
-Arrowhead Sniper Rifle: ETA moved from June 1st to June 8th
-Ksar Devastator-12 Shotgun: ETA moved from May 25th to June 8th
Is there any more information as to what the persistent data refactor entails and why it is necessary to implement before networking binding/unbinding?
No more information available on schedule report than what I already quoted.
I don't think it's necessary to do it before Network Bind/Unbind, but it's likely needed for some other features on 3.0.0, and causes so much work they had to delay one of their stretch goals to some future patch.
Minding their comments on hiring network engineers they don't seem to have a team big enough to handle the network front without rationing resources attm.
I wonder if it shall not be better to delay 3.0 further to tackle in the network rewrites over releasing 3.0 sooner but with worse network performance.
Was it ever confirmed about network bind/unbind or was it still speculation from the community?
- Delamar landing zone > Still a stretch goal
- Mobiglass Overhaul > Now confirmed needed for 3.0, no longer stretch goal.
- Network Bind/Unbind > Moved out of 3.0 and replaced with another network refactor that became a necessary dependency for the next update.
I guess they are tackling 3.0 into placeholder network code, to avoid delaying it for as long the multiple network rewrites are taking to complete.
No I meant about what network bind/unbind will do for the game performance wise.
In a simple way, the current way, when one NPC spawns in Yela, you at Port Olisar are getting that update, so getting rid of that will save a lot of CPU time for the servers.
The biggest improvement, however, is the one that is scheduled for completion in 2018, the object container streaming, up until the point multiple servers can support one game world.
There's a bunch of stuff that will accumulate to what will make the PU perform as intended, a lot of work to do on this front, most of it, post-3.0.
Thanks. that what I was kinda figuring from what I was seeing in the threads
This feature simply gives less updates for objects that are farther away from your position. It is not quite as useful as network culling but it will save a considerable amount of server CPU time and bandwidth.