Far from done IMHO. Not my cup of tea

[Majestic]

18 minutes ago, abyss03 said:

Runs on one core? what are you on about star citizen has run on multiple cores for ages. If your having any issues (A few people are) there is a user.cfg file that forces the game to use multiple cores. SC is very CPU intensive which isn't surprising really so if you have a weak sauce CPU that's probably the issue.

 

You say 3.5 years it should run a hell of a lot better than it does but I have never had any issue with the hanger module through out my upgrades (GTX 480, Radeon HD 6950 and GTX 980), they did have lower fps but not the stuttering you are on about. Also most games with a large scope probably run about as well as this does about 3.5 years into development, Batman Arkham Knight is a good example (They had the groundworks to begin with I might add).

 

As people have said before, other games that have been built from the beginning have had much longer in their development process so they would have probably have equally as bad performing builds as you say you are having.

 

Please correct me if you think anything I have said is wrong but this is correct as far as I am aware.

You could've started by looking at my provided graphs. Which clearly show one core being maxed. This is also corroberated by CIG to be an issue for i5's. And just how much longer are people defending this going to accept "lol it's alpha" as a reasonable rationalization. Fuck I pleged a F7C-Ghost back in the day, not a cheap pledge. So I have invested interest in it succeeding. But i'm not some hyped zealot that will defend my purchase beyond reasonable doubt. And right now, i'm beginning to doubt whether CIG can make up for it's claims. It's all still very shaky, buggy and ill performing on even good hardware.

 

And i'm not running a toaster, check my profile.

[abyss03]

26 minutes ago, Majestic said:

You could've started by looking at my provided graphs. Which clearly show one core being maxed. This is also corroberated by CIG to be an issue for i5's. And just how much longer are people defending this going to accept "lol it's alpha" as a reasonable rationalization. Fuck I pleged a F7C-Ghost back in the day, not a cheap pledge. So I have invested interest in it succeeding. But i'm not some hyped zealot that will defend my purchase beyond reasonable doubt. And right now, i'm beginning to doubt whether CIG can make up for it's claims. It's all still very shaky, buggy and ill performing on even good hardware.

 

And i'm not running a toaster, check my profile.

Okay.

 

I did check your graph, I have the same CPU and the same GPU variant (GTX 980) and don't have issues. It could be something that's acting a bit weird on your end but I couldn't fine any reports of the core issue post game version 1.3 so it should have been fixed. I found this link that solved issues for the 1.3 patch. I know the F7C-Ghost isn't a cheap package but personally I believe they can deliver but remember that all pledges do not guarantee anything, at the end of the day its a crowdfunded help to try and make the game not a pass to a completed game.

[Majestic]

6 minutes ago, abyss03 said:

Okay.

 

I did check your graph, I have the same CPU and the same GPU variant (GTX 980) and don't have issues. It could be something that's acting a bit weird on your end but I couldn't fine any reports of the core issue post game version 1.3 so it should have been fixed. I found this link that solved issues for the 1.3 patch. I know the F7C-Ghost isn't a cheap package but personally I believe they can deliver but remember that all pledges do not guarantee anything, at the end of the day its a crowdfunded help to try and make the game not a pass to a completed game.

"i dont have issues". That tells nobody anything.

 

And no, there is nothing wrong with my computer. I'd know if it was on my end. And the mention of the ghost was just to indicate that I wasn't nagging from a aurora cheap-buy-in perspective. I have invested interest in it succeeding. But not so much that I blindly neglect all issues. 

 

And to date, nothing they delivered is anywhere near ready, for any purpose.

[Grrizz]

17 hours ago, Majestic said:

You could've started by looking at my provided graphs. Which clearly show one core being maxed. This is also corroberated by CIG to be an issue for i5's. And just how much longer are people defending this going to accept "lol it's alpha" as a reasonable rationalization. Fuck I pleged a F7C-Ghost back in the day, not a cheap pledge. So I have invested interest in it succeeding. But i'm not some hyped zealot that will defend my purchase beyond reasonable doubt. And right now, i'm beginning to doubt whether CIG can make up for it's claims. It's all still very shaky, buggy and ill performing on even good hardware.

 

And i'm not running a toaster, check my profile.

Why is "its an alpha" not a reasonable rationalisation? Every game goes through an alpha stage and there's no reasonable way you can debate that this game isn't in alpha, if you aren't interested in playing an alpha you probably shouldn't be playing now. Just because you spent more than the minimum doesn't mean you get to skip alpha...

 

A very bare bones break down of the focuses of each stage would be:

Pre-alpha - Early stages of planning and development, pre-testing.

Alpha - Feature implementation and functionality testing. <-- Where we are.

Beta - Feature locked, known bug fixing, bug testing and performance optimisation. <-- Where you think we are (several months in).

 

As far as an alpha is concerned this game runs very well (even for an early beta), I haven't been in many (not my industry) but some of the ones I've played in wouldn't run smoothly on any available hardware at the time, yet released perfectly fine. In my industry its much the same, alphas are slow and if you don't do things in a particular way the product will straight up break, you put code in that you know (or at least hope ) will work to allow functionality testing and come back to refine it in beta. Again the biggest problem at the moment seems to be that people are unfamiliar with development and either compare SCs current state to the public alphas/betas of closed development games, other early access games that are closer in design to 'total conversion mods' than actual new games or small projects that have a total development lifecycle of 1-2 years.

 

Personally I see usage on all 8 of my cores (4C/4HT) but only see up to ~60% utilisation with only up to ~80% GPU utilisation, its a bug/unoptimised bit of code, its an alpha, its just where we are at in the development cycle, they could burn time and money on optimising the alpha the best they can but it would be an absolute waste when there are still core features being implemented. Equally I could uninstall the game and come back for beta/release but it runs 'good enough' for me as it is and I personally enjoy seeing broken games (as long as its not in the release version), its a peak behind the curtain, seeing something break often gives you insight as to how it was put together which appeals to my nature.

 

Out of curiosity what alphas have you been a part of?

[rentaspoon]

On 16/02/2016 at 11:29 PM, Majestic said:

You could've started by looking at my provided graphs. Which clearly show one core being maxed. This is also corroberated by CIG to be an issue for i5's. And just how much longer are people defending this going to accept "lol it's alpha" as a reasonable rationalization. Fuck I pleged a F7C-Ghost back in the day, not a cheap pledge. So I have invested interest in it succeeding. But i'm not some hyped zealot that will defend my purchase beyond reasonable doubt. And right now, i'm beginning to doubt whether CIG can make up for it's claims. It's all still very shaky, buggy and ill performing on even good hardware.

 

And i'm not running a toaster, check my profile.

The single core issue was a problem for 1.3 which they didn't fix because of 2.0, secondly I have no issue with my i5 and get a steady 60fps except in the Universe where they are testing how many cores they can limit an instance too.

On 17/02/2016 at 0:11 AM, Majestic said:

"i dont have issues". That tells nobody anything.

 

And no, there is nothing wrong with my computer. I'd know if it was on my end. And the mention of the ghost was just to indicate that I wasn't nagging from a aurora cheap-buy-in perspective. I have invested interest in it succeeding. But not so much that I blindly neglect all issues. 

 

And to date, nothing they delivered is anywhere near ready, for any purpose.

The problem to me seems to be your side so why not put a bug report into the issue council? Or add to one?

 

The fact that another player with the same specs that has "no issues" shows that clearly you have a bug that no one else has, so I'm sure this recurring bug would be something they would want to fix. I've had one myself.

 

Also I'm pretty sure that @abyss03 is only trying to help so try not to bite his head off. He's quite valuable to me.

 

As for Aurora to Hornet, it doesn't matter what you pledge.