You show me a code that is changing the parameters for the existing camera mechanics. Namely camera position. That is parametrization. Not reworking the inner game mechanics.
So contrary to what you say these inner game mechanics are STILL NOT
public knowledge. Which also means I still think your personal opinion
is not an objective truth.
Have fun
PS:
Gekokujo is first and formost a massive mod transforming M&B to the Japanese setting. That event scripts can be changed is a feature that many M&B mods offer.
PPS:
"Cinematic cameras" is another word for changing camera position and viewing angle. Very useful. Star Citizen fan pictures show what great pictures and videos can be made with that. But these are parameters you feed into the basic game mechanics. It does not mean you rework the basic game mechanics.
>>> That mod even went as far as attaching new controls and functionality to the camera.>>> You mean ... you do not have to enter the values manually but can enter the values via a control surface. Still parametrization. Only the input value changes. Which is still a lot of work and hats off to all the modders.
There ARE games that have an open source code to fiddle around with. M&B is not (yet) amongst it. The M&B open source project refers to code contributed by modders, not the full code of the original game itself.
You show me a code that is changing the parameters for the existing camera mechanics. Namely camera position. That is parametrization. Not reworking the inner game mechanics.
Have fun
I showed you a mod that adds scripts for two things with two different resulting feature sets. One modifies parameters of the fixed camera, which means they still had to know what they were hooking and interacting with in order to modify said camera. The other initializes a new camera and, again, with controls unique to it, hence requiring an extension of the variables.
Even ignoring that. You claimed that people didn't have access to this information, yet even if all they did was parameterization, they would have to have information on what the parameters were and how they operated.
Making claims like this does you no favors here, because you admitting that they can parametrize the camera means they have access to the knowledge of how the camera operates and therefore what they can do to affect it.
Just how quibbly do you want to try and get? You've backpedaled from them having access to this data, to "Oh well even though they have access to it for knowing how to identify parameters and functionality so that they can hook new parameters and scripts in to control it, they aren't completely replacing the system".
That source code argument is in itself nothing but a red herring. It's just you presenting a hyperbolic extreme that is is not a necessity for access to information on game components, variables, and discrete mechanics. Parameterization of any feature of the game would be impossible if source code was necessary for such. This isn't even addressing that people decompile this stuff all the time themselves to look at the source for it already, something quite different from the open source project you try to distract with.
There's already a difference in user knowledge of the system between a game offering players controls for positioning a camera natively, and a third party mod hooking into the system to do that.
Not to mention this is all a pedantic tangent to run away from the original point made there, that there is an objective and knowable factor to how the camera system works, and we know it well enough to even have mods that affect it. IE, it's an objectively knowable element, not just a matter of opinion.
I think I have to wait longer before replying as you constantly rework your posts :-)
As mentioned upthread- the developers allowed a limited manipulation or creation of certain elements, but did not allow mucking about with the basic mechanics of the game.
I claim people have access to information that the developers allow them to have. No more. No less.
The way that the 1PV and 3PV in M&B work is still not in the public knowledge. Only some parameters can be changed because the developers allowed it.
So now you claim people are messing with something they don't know how to mess with?
Yeah, can't take your opinion seriously on any level. Was your whole tactic here really to try and quibble over something so pedantic and make a claim about objectivity versus opinion that your argument can't even support, while also being so niche that it doesn't even reach to the validity of the rest of the argument or examples provided, in hopes that people would...what, forget what was posed a page ago?
What's worse, is how you've gone so die-hard on this one tangent to try and disprove an argument that used multiple games as point of examples, and the best you've done is backpedal into claiming that people can only know a bit about one game's system because they don't have the source code, and are only given a few variables to mess with. Which is a false argument for quite a variety of reasons.
It's a dive into extreme pedantics that relies on focus on a single element while ignoring the presence of many other ones. It tries to assert that because one doesn't know something, then no one does, and every time you're presented with new information you are quick to make assumptive statements that then have to be corrected, which you respond to with more presumptive statements. Point in case was me entertaining your claim about parametrization. While it's not even accurate, as people can see on the mod page that they even give you a list of new parameters that you have to plug into a scene for the controls to work with, the script itself uses instantiation and actually has to define the mechanics of those new parameters within the script.
The best you've got out of that argument was that you say "they didn't replace the camera with an entirely new one", which failed to disprove anything regarding the fact that they had sufficient access to compile new scripts. Was there a need to completely replace the camera system if they only had to add a few new functions to reach the end result? No, but you took that as a soft enough point to try and use it to claim that since they didn't do that, then they obviously didn't have any extended knowledge of the system. Which is a leap of logic in itself that ignores that to build the new parameters they control with the instantiation of the custom camera, they had to have a means of understanding the mechanics of the feature in the first place. Things like the PW and especially CRPG mods would be physically impossible if we didn't have the ability to crack open and modify core game systems.
Which then leads into the next fault, that even granting you that and saying "even if it was just modification of variables they exposed for us", then you immediately ignore the very real situation that's still posed around that, these variables would be useless for parameterization without documentation or understanding of how the system works for us to be properly utilizing them. And when they do provide that information, you run into yet another big hiccup on your part. That being how those variables would be used to snap onto a first or third person viewing angle, or to break from them to be used cinematically. When we have script that demonstrates the camera controls and shows how it has to be hooked or detached from a specific entity or location of that entity, then you argument that we don't know how it works falls extremely flat. And yet, that's the claim you went with.
This in turn leads right back into the absurdity of the argument itself. Not only is there an objectively observable case to be made by clicking on that link and reading the script to see how it has to detect the attach points, and therefore denotes how the camera is migrated between points on the character's rig to accommodates differing POVs, we have also the fact that this whole argument was itself a far-flung dive from where this game was mentioned for having this mechanic as only one of multiple presented.
In turn, this is compounded by the repeatable point that the claim about a unified or same rig was used in SC turned out to be wrong according to what the devs claimed in the video Bacon linked.
So you've spent around nine posts now trying to support a claim about SC that's not even correct in the first place. Shouldn't be surprising someone would try and protect one piece of misinformation with a massive dive into pedantics around another as a way of forgetting your original argument was wrong in the first place.
It's quite the long walk to again ignore that you made claims about SC's mechanics that don't align with what the devs claim.
I do NOT claim what you say. That is - once again - just your personal interpretation. Competent Moders know what they are doing. But they can only do things within the framework allowed by the official developers.
If you take my opinion seriously is your business. It affects me not ;-)
What you call a tangent is my central argument - SC uses a new improved way to handle a smooth integrated combination of 1PV and 3PV which in my opinion is better than previous solutions we see in other games. Games such as M&B.
And the devs claim just that .... and playing the Alpha proves that their claims are correct. And the system may in the end be even better, based on additional testing and improvements.
And going back to the threads topic ... backers invest money in SC not primarily because they already invested money (sunk cost), but they want the best (currently) possible solutions and a great story and narrative universe. And the 1PV /3PV topic IS one of these technical issues/solutions.
Have fun
PS:
I really HAVE to wait longer as you constantly modify your posts ;-)
I do NOT claim what you say. That is - once again - just your personal interpretation. Competent Moders know what they are doing. But they can only do things within the framework allowed by the official developers.
If you take my opinion seriously is your business. It affects me not ;-)
What you call a tangent is my central argument - SC uses a new improved way to handle a smooth integrated combination of 1PV and 3PV which in my opinion is better than previous solutions we see in other games. Games such as M&B.
And the devs claim just that .... and playing the Alpha proves that their claims are correct. And the system may in the end be even better, based on additional testing and improvements.
And going back to the threads topic ... backers invest money in SC not primarily because they already invested money (sunk cost), but they want the best (currently) possible solutions and a great story and narrative universe. And the 1PV /3PV topic IS one of these technical issues/solutions.
Have fun
PS:
I really HAVE to wait longer as you constantly modify your posts ;-)
So in your argument, an "honest" connection is one where 2/3 of the rig is swapped and/or reanimated?
You made that claim. The video points out that the rig is separated into three components with the hand IK being swapped out for first vs third person and the head behaving differently in each.
You did make the claim mentioned, and you made it in a dogpile with two other people who had their own pitch around it, and it was a false claim that you have now modified. Softening the statement to be an "integration of first and third" just turns it into a meaningless piece of dialogue because plenty of games use blending of IKs now for first and third person camera controls and animation, it's a standard implementation for porting and attaching rigs in Unity even (which just went through an update a couple months ago too, but has been a feature loosely since at least 2014).
I watched the video you linked and found nothing that contradicts what I said. They used a unified concept for 1PV and 3PV. And then improved upon it by simulating with certain procedures what the brain does automatically. For an end result that works well. That was my claim. That YOU understand it differently is not my problem ;-)
That other games NOW also start to use this may well be. The video you linked is three years old. I hope and expect that other developers recognize something that works well within a three year timeframe.
Read my explanation upthread of how 1PV and 3PV are connected in SC. It’s identical to what the developers explain in the video. There is no backpedaling taking place. You only think it is. Once again - your opinion. Not a fact.
Could you list 3 things that are unique to star citizen without mentioning graphics or fidelity that currently exist IN the game for me please? Theoretical and planned elements don’t count
I can't guarentee that they're unique, as I don't know all games in the universe.
Here are 3 things that I consider very rare, if not unique - that are already in the game:
100% unified 1P/3P camera perspectives. The only other game that does this that I'm aware of is Arma - and that implementation is inferior.
Multiple independent physics grids co-existing within the same space.
FOIP
You just said you can’t guarantee they are unique and you also gave an example of another game that does it. Am I being trolled or are star citizen fans really trying to change what the meaning of unique means?
I’ll ask again can you list 3 things that are unique to star citizen without mentioning graphics or fidelity and that currently exist in the game?
As I've said several times already, these features are not necessarily unique.
There's no way to know if they are or not, unless you know every game in existence.
But I do know that they're very rare - because I haven't seen them anywhere else (or, a few of them only in one or two games), and I've been following the industry for many, many years, and I've personally played thousands of games.
So, you can ask for something I've never claimed Star Citizen has - but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
The unique nature of Star Citizen is about the amount of unique and/or rare features it combines into the overall structure of the game - and how much it represents a combined evolution of the space sim.
Maybe YOU can tell me where these features exist in other games?
You made the claim in your original post that the list of unique (or certainly, extremely rare) is very long so I simply asked for 3 of them from this very long list.
now you’re trying to move the goalposts by saying it’s about the amount of unique and/or rare features combined within one game and the cherry on top is you’re trying to flip the table and have me tell you where the features exist in other games. I didn’t make the claim, you did so the burden of proof is on you.
I swear you must have the star citizen internet defence manual open in front of you right now and are going through it step by step. Make grand claim, when called out on it, move goalposts and attempt to turn table on other person
No, I'm not responsible for what you imagine I said. Your imaginary goalposts can't be moved by me.
I can only be responsible for what I actually say.
You just repeated it. They're unique OR extremely rare.
Do you know what "or" means?
I gave you three examples.
Most of the features I'm talking about may well be unique as well as extremely rare, I just can't make that claim with certainty which is why I added the "or" - because I'm the sort of person who prefers knowing before claiming to know.
So, yeah, I think a lot of them ARE unique, based on my experience. I just don't know with absolute certainty. There are also games in development that we don't even know about - so establishing features as entirely unique is all but impossible. They still CAN be, though.
But you didn't answer my question. Can you give me examples of other games using these features?
You did say unique or extremely rare and I asked for unique. I don’t care about extremely rare things but I want unique to star citizen hence why I asked it.
And please don’t try and weasel out by saying “There are also games in development that we don’t even know about - so establishing features as entirely unique is all but impossible” as that’s a cop out. If we don’t know about it then it’s irrelevant to the discussion at this exact point in time.
And if you’re going to make the claim then you better back it up and not try to change the argument cause you are backed into a corner.
I actually don’t have to answer your question because I didn’t make the claim. I just wanted to know of 3 that are unique to star citizen. You gave 3 but disqualified one so I’m still waiting.
That's great that you think somehing that's established as 100% unique is necessary for Star Citizen to be something special.
I don't think so, though - and I've never argued that all its features are unique - or that they need to be.
So, asking for something that I've never said exists is hardly reasonable.
I'm saying the game is special and it has unique or extremely rare features as a part of the reason why.
No, of course you don't have to answer my question. This is an exchange - where we present our points of view. I like to back them up with some arguments and reasoning, but that's not a requisite.
It means there's no cheating involved with the two camera perspectives.
So a lot of words for the same thing Mount&Blade has done for the last 15 years.
Ehm, no
As far as I know, M&B has extremely limited animations that would make this technology absolutely superfluous.
Maybe I should rephrase it - it's a 100% unified 1P/3P camera in a game that has an exhaustive amount of animations and sophistication when it comes to world interaction.
Having to do this for a super awkward 3D model and a few swings is hardly the same thing
That's like saying the first game using some kind of physics engine did the same thing as Control is doing now.
Short of it; A cam that requires the model components to be broken into three parts and swapped about is not "100% unified".
The fundamental claim of yours is false.
And we are back to our old argument. YOUR definition of "unified" is YOUR opinion of it. It is not a universal truth. It seems DKLond and me have a DIFFERENT idea of what "unified" means.
So DKLond's claim is not "false". It is just DIFFERENT from yours.
What we call "unified" is a system that works, as you can test in the Star Citizen Alpha.
And we are willing to support developers that create such working systems ... support them with our money. And we could not care less if someone calls that "Sunk cost fallacy".
I'm
enjoying the exchange in the Sunk Cost thread. However, Max, the rabbit
guy, and Babs would love nothing more than to get a negative SC thread
closed by the mods.
Don't take the bait. We all want to call them
out for their blatant lies, but for some reason, they are allowed by
the mods here. Making them untouchable.
Keep challenging him,
just don't let him take the thread off topic and violate rules of
conduct, that's what those 3 assholes want.
When they contradict themselves, quote all their contradictions. Don't say anything to get yourself banned, that's my job."
Shows quite well WHY you post in this thread. I pity those who have to call others "assholes" just because they disagree with them.
No 2ft stretchy neck in this one from a couple of months ago but plenty of stretch Armstrong animations. 8 minutes and 20 seconds in if timestamp does not work.
Did I call you one? No, so why are you trying to bend an argument around to try and make it an attack on me?
Exactly how far backwards are you planning to pretzel yourself in an attempt to get some kind of silly win or whatever you're chasing?
Should we look at this part;
"just don't let him take the thread off topic and violate rules of conduct"
And note how it relates to your current behavior? Not only have you been pushing the topic off tangent, you've straight up jumped the rails to make this comment that has no correlation.
I pity those that have to delve into endless fallacious behavior to try and defend some random hobby just because some people aren't of a shared opinion.
Comments
Even ignoring that. You claimed that people didn't have access to this information, yet even if all they did was parameterization, they would have to have information on what the parameters were and how they operated.
Making claims like this does you no favors here, because you admitting that they can parametrize the camera means they have access to the knowledge of how the camera operates and therefore what they can do to affect it.
Just how quibbly do you want to try and get? You've backpedaled from them having access to this data, to "Oh well even though they have access to it for knowing how to identify parameters and functionality so that they can hook new parameters and scripts in to control it, they aren't completely replacing the system".
That source code argument is in itself nothing but a red herring. It's just you presenting a hyperbolic extreme that is is not a necessity for access to information on game components, variables, and discrete mechanics. Parameterization of any feature of the game would be impossible if source code was necessary for such. This isn't even addressing that people decompile this stuff all the time themselves to look at the source for it already, something quite different from the open source project you try to distract with.
There's already a difference in user knowledge of the system between a game offering players controls for positioning a camera natively, and a third party mod hooking into the system to do that.
Not to mention this is all a pedantic tangent to run away from the original point made there, that there is an objective and knowable factor to how the camera system works, and we know it well enough to even have mods that affect it. IE, it's an objectively knowable element, not just a matter of opinion.
As mentioned upthread- the developers allowed a limited manipulation or creation of certain elements, but did not allow mucking about with the basic mechanics of the game.
I claim people have access to information that the developers allow them to have. No more. No less.
The way that the 1PV and 3PV in M&B work is still not in the public knowledge. Only some parameters can be changed because the developers allowed it.
So ... as mentioned ... not objectively knowable.
Have fun
Yeah, can't take your opinion seriously on any level. Was your whole tactic here really to try and quibble over something so pedantic and make a claim about objectivity versus opinion that your argument can't even support, while also being so niche that it doesn't even reach to the validity of the rest of the argument or examples provided, in hopes that people would...what, forget what was posed a page ago?
What's worse, is how you've gone so die-hard on this one tangent to try and disprove an argument that used multiple games as point of examples, and the best you've done is backpedal into claiming that people can only know a bit about one game's system because they don't have the source code, and are only given a few variables to mess with. Which is a false argument for quite a variety of reasons.
It's a dive into extreme pedantics that relies on focus on a single element while ignoring the presence of many other ones. It tries to assert that because one doesn't know something, then no one does, and every time you're presented with new information you are quick to make assumptive statements that then have to be corrected, which you respond to with more presumptive statements. Point in case was me entertaining your claim about parametrization. While it's not even accurate, as people can see on the mod page that they even give you a list of new parameters that you have to plug into a scene for the controls to work with, the script itself uses instantiation and actually has to define the mechanics of those new parameters within the script.
The best you've got out of that argument was that you say "they didn't replace the camera with an entirely new one", which failed to disprove anything regarding the fact that they had sufficient access to compile new scripts. Was there a need to completely replace the camera system if they only had to add a few new functions to reach the end result? No, but you took that as a soft enough point to try and use it to claim that since they didn't do that, then they obviously didn't have any extended knowledge of the system. Which is a leap of logic in itself that ignores that to build the new parameters they control with the instantiation of the custom camera, they had to have a means of understanding the mechanics of the feature in the first place. Things like the PW and especially CRPG mods would be physically impossible if we didn't have the ability to crack open and modify core game systems.
Which then leads into the next fault, that even granting you that and saying "even if it was just modification of variables they exposed for us", then you immediately ignore the very real situation that's still posed around that, these variables would be useless for parameterization without documentation or understanding of how the system works for us to be properly utilizing them. And when they do provide that information, you run into yet another big hiccup on your part. That being how those variables would be used to snap onto a first or third person viewing angle, or to break from them to be used cinematically. When we have script that demonstrates the camera controls and shows how it has to be hooked or detached from a specific entity or location of that entity, then you argument that we don't know how it works falls extremely flat. And yet, that's the claim you went with.
This in turn leads right back into the absurdity of the argument itself. Not only is there an objectively observable case to be made by clicking on that link and reading the script to see how it has to detect the attach points, and therefore denotes how the camera is migrated between points on the character's rig to accommodates differing POVs, we have also the fact that this whole argument was itself a far-flung dive from where this game was mentioned for having this mechanic as only one of multiple presented.
In turn, this is compounded by the repeatable point that the claim about a unified or same rig was used in SC turned out to be wrong according to what the devs claimed in the video Bacon linked.
So you've spent around nine posts now trying to support a claim about SC that's not even correct in the first place. Shouldn't be surprising someone would try and protect one piece of misinformation with a massive dive into pedantics around another as a way of forgetting your original argument was wrong in the first place.
It's quite the long walk to again ignore that you made claims about SC's mechanics that don't align with what the devs claim.
If you take my opinion seriously is your business. It affects me not ;-)
What you call a tangent is my central argument - SC uses a new improved way to handle a smooth integrated combination of 1PV and 3PV which in my opinion is better than previous solutions we see in other games. Games such as M&B.
And the devs claim just that .... and playing the Alpha proves that their claims are correct. And the system may in the end be even better, based on additional testing and improvements.
And going back to the threads topic ... backers invest money in SC not primarily because they already invested money (sunk cost), but they want the best (currently) possible solutions and a great story and narrative universe. And the 1PV /3PV topic IS one of these technical issues/solutions.
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/483287/sunk-cost-fallacy/p6#VjK4kdO2fL3IgsBo.99
So in your argument, an "honest" connection is one where 2/3 of the rig is swapped and/or reanimated?
You made that claim. The video points out that the rig is separated into three components with the hand IK being swapped out for first vs third person and the head behaving differently in each.
You did make the claim mentioned, and you made it in a dogpile with two other people who had their own pitch around it, and it was a false claim that you have now modified. Softening the statement to be an "integration of first and third" just turns it into a meaningless piece of dialogue because plenty of games use blending of IKs now for first and third person camera controls and animation, it's a standard implementation for porting and attaching rigs in Unity even (which just went through an update a couple months ago too, but has been a feature loosely since at least 2014).
That other games NOW also start to use this may well be. The video you linked is three years old.
I hope and expect that other developers recognize something that works well within a three year timeframe.
Have fun
Yes, I'm sure nothing is in contradiction as long as you keep backpedaling into more distant phrasing.
Have fun
PS:
midnight here. Good night. :-D
Already quoted and demonstrated your change in argument.
Have fun backpedaling into bed.
When Roberts says 'When it's done!', that equals infinity.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
I don't think so, though - and I've never argued that all its features are unique - or that they need to be.
So, asking for something that I've never said exists is hardly reasonable.
I'm saying the game is special and it has unique or extremely rare features as a part of the reason why.
No, of course you don't have to answer my question. This is an exchange - where we present our points of view. I like to back them up with some arguments and reasoning, but that's not a requisite.
It's all a part of how reasonable you want to be.
As far as I know, M&B has extremely limited animations that would make this technology absolutely superfluous.
Maybe I should rephrase it - it's a 100% unified 1P/3P camera in a game that has an exhaustive amount of animations and sophistication when it comes to world interaction.
Having to do this for a super awkward 3D model and a few swings is hardly the same thing
That's like saying the first game using some kind of physics engine did the same thing as Control is doing now.
I'll return once Star Citizen is further along.
Short of it;
A cam that requires the model components to be broken into three parts and swapped about is not "100% unified".
The fundamental claim of yours is false.
Really scraping the bottom of that barrel.
Don't wear out that reverse gear too fast.
Don't take the bait. We all want to call them out for their blatant lies, but for some reason, they are allowed by the mods here. Making them untouchable.
Keep challenging him, just don't let him take the thread off topic and violate rules of conduct, that's what those 3 assholes want.
When they contradict themselves, quote all their contradictions. Don't say anything to get yourself banned, that's my job."
Exactly how far backwards are you planning to pretzel yourself in an attempt to get some kind of silly win or whatever you're chasing?
Should we look at this part;
"just don't let him take the thread off topic and violate rules of conduct"
And note how it relates to your current behavior? Not only have you been pushing the topic off tangent, you've straight up jumped the rails to make this comment that has no correlation.
I pity those that have to delve into endless fallacious behavior to try and defend some random hobby just because some people aren't of a shared opinion.