But 2.6.3 with 60 players could run at 3 FPS for all we know. If they've doubled that number they could be running their 60 players at 6 FPS vs. 15-25 FPS of current 2.6.3 build.
Getting higher performance on 60 players is good, but I haven't seen any mention that they'd be already getting more FPS at 60 players than 2.6.3 is getting with 24.
Are we misunderstanding each other somehow?
I think we are.
We need to start with 2.6.3's flippant performance, there's a norm and I would say a 24 player server in the live update norms around 20 FPS, then seems to settle in a 15-20-25FPS.
This test, with 60 players, bounced between 20 FPS to 30 FPS, others do report higher but the most frequently reported is the around 30. So that already outperforms.
Mind that in the 3.0 build before the 60 players, there were the 24 players builds with similar performance to the 2.6.3 build "..the FPS drops down 10-15 FPS when the server is full.". So you can imagine the difference from a build to the other.
We were misunderstanding each other. I was looking for official confirmation from that Newegg video you posted earlier, and you were comparing information from non-official sources.
Sorry I think this was my fault I should have understood.
Old hat .. has been posted here before in the funny bugs video section.
Have fun
It's a leak from their latest build, isn't it?
That video which has since been taken down due to us not supposed to be knowing about what it's like on the inside of this open game dev project that was supposed to release in 2014.
Gah, harrumph!
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
That video which has since been taken down due to us not supposed to be knowing about what it's like on the inside of this open game dev project that was supposed to release in 2014.
Gah, harrumph!
No, like from several builds ago, things are back to human again.
The most recent ETF bug was one of the mad ones, where if someone spawned more than one ship in a terminal, all the lights of the entire PU would go out and all the players in the instance become unable to move. lol
here's a TLDR version of burndown this week on progress towards PTU release
Shopping/Cargo
Bugs: 20 -> 30 (-50%)
Missions
Bugs: 11 -> 22 (-100%)
Tasks: 76 -> 91 (-20%)
Ships/Vehicles
Bugs: 6 -> 6 (0%)
Tasks: 31 -> 47 (-52%)
Traversal
Bugs: 2 -> 2 (0%)
Tasks: 22 -> 18 (18%)
Mobiglass
Bugs: 18 -> 18 (0%)
Tasks: 42 -> 48 (-14%)
Performance stability
Tasks: 63 -> 57 (9%)
I was hoping to see at least 25% progress in each category, but almost everything went the wrong direction
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Devs fix just enough big bugs to hand them off to testers who's job it is to list them for Devs so they can fix them and hand them back to testers who will find new ones and hand it back to the Devs. No wonder it takes so long.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Devs fix just enough big bugs to hand them off to testers who's job it is to list them for Devs so they can fix them and hand them back to testers who will find new ones and hand it back to the Devs. No wonder it takes so long.
It's the scale the messes things up. One bug can involve multiple parts of the game, and even bug-fixes might break other things, it's one painful frustrating process of back and forth, made worse by the fact 3.0 is not a content update, can be branded the "refactor update", new backend systems, new tech, new engine tools, new netcode, etc... uh oh
But there is a core point here: Tackling in feedback.
Most recent examples: - Atmospheric Flight - now has a sprint for 3.0 but after a strong feedback on how ships felt on the streams and also the ETF, they have decided to push into that.
- Network improvements - When everyone was already expecting 3.0 to be still the old flippant netcode without player count increase, they have decided to push new code and start testing it out, and seems now they are achieving stuff beyond what generally people were expecting in that front.
When you follow the dev you see a lot of this, literally pushing improvement on everything they can until the very last minute, a very visible push on wanting 3.0 to make a good impact as a priority.
Get comfy girls, we're in for a longer than anticipated ride.
I don't think we should look at the number of issues at all.
Instead we should look at the time taken vs. time estimated. We still have the original 3.0 production schedule where RSI estimated it takes 11 days from launch of Evocati till launch of PTU, then 14 days before the 3.0.0 is released.
If it takes less than that CIG is making good progress, if it takes more then CIG is making bad progress. As far as one can be making good progress when they're more than 10 months late from their original launch ETA.
Get comfy girls, we're in for a longer than anticipated ride.
I don't think we should look at the number of issues at all.
Instead we should look at the time taken vs. time estimated. We still have the original 3.0 production schedule where RSI estimated it takes 11 days from launch of Evocati till launch of PTU, then 14 days before the 3.0.0 is released.
If it takes less than that CIG is making good progress, if it takes more then CIG is making bad progress. As far as one can be making good progress when they're more than 10 months late from their original launch ETA.
Original launch ETA was November 2014. You don't get to call it an original launch ETA after moving the goalposts umpteen times.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Get comfy girls, we're in for a longer than anticipated ride.
I don't think we should look at the number of issues at all.
Instead we should look at the time taken vs. time estimated. We still have the original 3.0 production schedule where RSI estimated it takes 11 days from launch of Evocati till launch of PTU, then 14 days before the 3.0.0 is released.
If it takes less than that CIG is making good progress, if it takes more then CIG is making bad progress. As far as one can be making good progress when they're more than 10 months late from their original launch ETA.
This is 17 or so ships in this screenshot, imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if there were 60 ships here...
Out of curiousity, do they have any sort of landing control to manage these ships? It all looks like a bit chaotic to me.
Oh the limit was 60 players, not 60 ships. From what we were talking they report numbers as 100 ships, there was a ship spawning specific stress test where it went up to 120-140 spawned ships that was the breaking point of the server dropping to 10FPS.
And yes one of the features of 3.0 is the Landing Control, it's not a free landing on pads as before, but that screen is more because everyone was spawning in Ollisar the same time, in 3.0 with your location being now persistent we won't have the god'ol mass spawn in Ollisar every instance open.
Original launch ETA was November 2014. You don't get to call it an original launch ETA after moving the goalposts umpteen times.
Original ESTIMATED launch date was November 2014.
And it was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign, when all the stretch goals were added and the call to the backers went out to dramatically increase the scope of the game.
And the backers voted: directly with "AYE" and indirectly (and even more dramatically) with their wallets. The backers even voted TWICE with an "AYE" - and after the second time CIG apologized and told them they had to stop adding stretch goals then and there (the backers wanted even more).
But you knew all that already.
And still repeat that obsolete "November 2014" date like a mantra ;-)
This is 17 or so ships in this screenshot, imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if there were 60 ships here...
Out of curiousity, do they have any sort of landing control to manage these ships? It all looks like a bit chaotic to me.
Oh the limit was 60 players, not 60 ships. From what we were talking they report numbers as 100 ships, there was a ship spawning specific stress test where it went up to 120-140 spawned ships that was the breaking point of the server dropping to 10FPS.
And yes one of the features of 3.0 is the Landing Control, it's not a free landing on pads as before, but that screen is more because everyone was spawning in Ollisar the same time, in 3.0 with your location being now persistent we won't have the god'ol mass spawn in Ollisar every instance open.
They should have designed stations more like an airport with decent approach and departure and less like the local pertrol station car park though. To late to redesign I guess!
They should have designed stations more like an airport with decent approach and departure and less like the local pertrol station car park though. To late to redesign I guess!
Its never too late to redesign.
I like how Elite Dangerous is handling the landing and parking in hangar. You are removed from the landing pad via elevator into an underground hangar, so the landing pad is free for the next ship.
Original launch ETA was November 2014. You don't get to call it an original launch ETA after moving the goalposts umpteen times.
Original ESTIMATED launch date was November 2014.
And it was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign, when all the stretch goals were added and the call to the backers went out to dramatically increase the scope of the game.
And the backers voted: directly with "AYE" and indirectly (and even more dramatically) with their wallets. The backers even voted TWICE with an "AYE" - and after the second time CIG apologized and told them they had to stop adding stretch goals then and there (the backers wanted even more).
But you knew all that already.
And still repeat that obsolete "November 2014" date like a mantra ;-)
Have fun
Well, it's true. Calling it "obsolete" doesn't change the fact that Roberts initially estimated November 2014 as the time when the completed Star Citizen would be available to purchase when he initially garnered interest for his project.
I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. However, because his community encouraged SC off the rails causing it to take the path it did is even more reason in my mind to remember what was initially promised.
I agree it will take as long as it takes, but this project is 3 years late, not 10 months.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
They should have designed stations more like an airport with decent approach and departure and less like the local pertrol station car park though. To late to redesign I guess!
Its never too late to redesign.
I like how Elite Dangerous is handling the landing and parking in hangar. You are removed from the landing pad via elevator into an underground hangar, so the landing pad is free for the next ship.
Have fun
Yeah I agree, it's quite a tidy solution. It can still get hectic at outposts but on the whole it works quite well.
This is 17 or so ships in this screenshot, imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if there were 60 ships here...
Out of curiousity, do they have any sort of landing control to manage these ships? It all looks like a bit chaotic to me.
Oh the limit was 60 players, not 60 ships. From what we were talking they report numbers as 100 ships, there was a ship spawning specific stress test where it went up to 120-140 spawned ships that was the breaking point of the server dropping to 10FPS.
[...]
Didn't know that star citizen has so many spawning points atm. It is a different kind of problem if the server crashes when 120 unused ship assets are in the game. Do you have a forum link, reddit or video where I can read more about it?
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it. The cake is a lie.
They should have designed stations more like an airport with decent approach and departure and less like the local pertrol station car park though. To late to redesign I guess!
The system with 3.0, they did one ATV on it as well, so you see Levski has 3-4 landing pads, so what you do is ask for permission, get an assignment, once you land your ship will get stored and open up space for the next one.
It's a rather physical system because they want the concept of traffic, but there are also timers to between land > ship stored > call ship > takeoff to keep it flowing.
I think they don't want to fully prevent traffic, just keep it within a limit.
Didn't know that star citizen has so many spawning points atm. It is a different kind of problem if the server crashes when 120 unused ship assets are in the game. Do you have a forum link, reddit or video where I can read more about it?
(3.0) It has two main spawning points (3 if you count pirate players), Ollisar and Levski. But the actual thing I was mentioning is persistent locations, being able to save when you logout and spawn back in on the same place when you play again, is what will avoid that constant reset of location.
This has been talked about, now find the video where shall be a challenge. I'm not sure how it works, if the server keeps your location and saves it by itself as you move, or if it only saves your location when logout/sleep. I know the game servers (what crashes) just interact with the persistent database so it all depends on when they do call it to save the location of a client.
Original launch ETA was November 2014. You don't get to call it an original launch ETA after moving the goalposts umpteen times.
Original ESTIMATED launch date was November 2014.
And it was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign, when all the stretch goals were added and the call to the backers went out to dramatically increase the scope of the game.
And the backers voted: directly with "AYE" and indirectly (and even more dramatically) with their wallets. The backers even voted TWICE with an "AYE" - and after the second time CIG apologized and told them they had to stop adding stretch goals then and there (the backers wanted even more).
But you knew all that already.
And still repeat that obsolete "November 2014" date like a mantra ;-)
Have fun
Well, it's true. Calling it "obsolete" doesn't change the fact that Roberts initially estimated November 2014 as the time when the completed Star Citizen would be available to purchase when he initially garnered interest for his project.
I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. However, because his community encouraged SC off the rails causing it to take the path it did is even more reason in my mind to remember what was initially promised.
I agree it will take as long as it takes, but this project is 3 years late, not 10 months.
I don't know that the community really encouraged it to go off the rails, indirectly they did by dumping more and more money on it but the real decision lies with Chris Roberts.
I agree it will take as long as it takes, but this project is 3 years late, not 10 months.
There is a difference between being rescheduled and being late. If you can learn this difference perhaps you will not make the mistake of calling it late again.
Comments
Sorry I think this was my fault I should have understood.
That video which has since been taken down due to us not supposed to be knowing about what it's like on the inside of this open game dev project that was supposed to release in 2014.
Gah, harrumph!
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The most recent ETF bug was one of the mad ones, where if someone spawned more than one ship in a terminal, all the lights of the entire PU would go out and all the players in the instance become unable to move. lol
11/9/17 New burndown....not looking good for PTU release anytime soon
here's a TLDR version of burndown this week on progress towards PTU release
Shopping/Cargo
Missions
Ships/Vehicles
Traversal
Mobiglass
Performance stability
I was hoping to see at least 25% progress in each category, but almost everything went the wrong direction
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Have fun
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
But there is a core point here: Tackling in feedback.
Most recent examples:
- Atmospheric Flight - now has a sprint for 3.0 but after a strong feedback on how ships felt on the streams and also the ETF, they have decided to push into that.
- Starmap in Ship UI - Some time ago, a big thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/79khvs/starmap_should_be_integrated_inside_cockpit_ship/ started with strong feedback on the starmap while inside ships, against using the "arm-UI" and integrate it directly with the ship. In the latest burndown you see a new development sprint to add the starmap to the ship's UI.
- Network improvements - When everyone was already expecting 3.0 to be still the old flippant netcode without player count increase, they have decided to push new code and start testing it out, and seems now they are achieving stuff beyond what generally people were expecting in that front.
When you follow the dev you see a lot of this, literally pushing improvement on everything they can until the very last minute, a very visible push on wanting 3.0 to make a good impact as a priority.
Oops...
Get comfy girls, we're in for a longer than anticipated ride.
Bear in mind that while it looks good it doesn't show the fps or give an indication of how the server was performing etc.
This is 17 or so ships in this screenshot, imagine what a clusterfuck it would be if there were 60 ships here...
Out of curiousity, do they have any sort of landing control to manage these ships? It all looks like a bit chaotic to me.
Instead we should look at the time taken vs. time estimated. We still have the original 3.0 production schedule where RSI estimated it takes 11 days from launch of Evocati till launch of PTU, then 14 days before the 3.0.0 is released.
If it takes less than that CIG is making good progress, if it takes more then CIG is making bad progress. As far as one can be making good progress when they're more than 10 months late from their original launch ETA.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Some well known and greatly loved computer games had thousands during development.
Have fun
And yes one of the features of 3.0 is the Landing Control, it's not a free landing on pads as before, but that screen is more because everyone was spawning in Ollisar the same time, in 3.0 with your location being now persistent we won't have the god'ol mass spawn in Ollisar every instance open.
And it was already obsolete by the end of the Kickstarter campaign, when all the stretch goals were added and the call to the backers went out to dramatically increase the scope of the game.
And the backers voted: directly with "AYE" and indirectly (and even more dramatically) with their wallets. The backers even voted TWICE with an "AYE" - and after the second time CIG apologized and told them they had to stop adding stretch goals then and there (the backers wanted even more).
But you knew all that already.
And still repeat that obsolete "November 2014" date like a mantra ;-)
Have fun
I like how Elite Dangerous is handling the landing and parking in hangar. You are removed from the landing pad via elevator into an underground hangar, so the landing pad is free for the next ship.
Have fun
I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way. However, because his community encouraged SC off the rails causing it to take the path it did is even more reason in my mind to remember what was initially promised.
I agree it will take as long as it takes, but this project is 3 years late, not 10 months.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Yeah I agree, it's quite a tidy solution. It can still get hectic at outposts but on the whole it works quite well.
It is a different kind of problem if the server crashes when 120 unused ship assets are in the game.
Do you have a forum link, reddit or video where I can read more about it?
When you have cake, it is not the cake that creates the most magnificent of experiences, but it is the emotions attached to it.
The cake is a lie.
It's a rather physical system because they want the concept of traffic, but there are also timers to between land > ship stored > call ship > takeoff to keep it flowing.
I think they don't want to fully prevent traffic, just keep it within a limit.
This has been talked about, now find the video where shall be a challenge. I'm not sure how it works, if the server keeps your location and saves it by itself as you move, or if it only saves your location when logout/sleep. I know the game servers (what crashes) just interact with the persistent database so it all depends on when they do call it to save the location of a client.
I don't know that the community really encouraged it to go off the rails, indirectly they did by dumping more and more money on it but the real decision lies with Chris Roberts.
The polls regarding stretch goals can be seen here https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen_refunds/comments/711y4r/the_two_official_cig_community_polls_related_to/