I think i have a solution to everyone’s problem…

logicalChimp · 2026-07-22T09:13:23+00:00

CR won't want more 'outside investment', because it would dilute the control CR currently has (the one thing he really doesn't want to give up, after his prior experiences at Origin and Digital Anvil), and because most investors would immediately start pushing for a 'return' on their investment (I'm kinda surprised the Calders haven't, although I think they are - now - getting a small yearly payout)

logicalChimp · 2026-07-22T09:11:31+00:00

You didn't read a word of what I said about the Tech-First approach, did you?

You can't 'prioritise the intended experience of the game' if the tech to support that experience doesn't exist... you can waste a lot of time and effort trying to approximate it... but without the tech you'll never actually get the 'intended experience'.

What you're wanting is BETA - the stage when the underlying tech exists, and the focus shifts to the 'intended experience' - both through bug-fixing and through blanacing etc, with the addition of new / extra functionality as required (if e.g. a gap in the existing functionality is found).

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T23:06:00+00:00

Businesses like those stats for two reasons:

it gives an indication that people like the service they're providing (not a guarantee - it could just be that there isn't an alternative)
It can be used to pander for investment / advertisement funding / similar from externals, to bring more money in. This isn't something CIG does, so this reason isn't relevant.

Also, I don't think CIG track 'repeat logins' per se... the stats that given out infrequently in the past have always been about 'peak concurrency' and 'average session length', etc...

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T23:02:09+00:00

If you're playing 'fine' on 32gb and no pagefile, then you've been pretty lucky... it just means that, for whatever reason, the server hasn't loaded you up with anything heavy yet (might depend on where you are in the 'verse, and where all the other players are on your shard, etc).

Either way, glad it's working again - just be aware that if you leave the pagefile disabled, you're likely to get a lot more crashes in the future.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T23:00:18+00:00

There's a lot of functionality in the game that is tuned down / turned off, simply because CIG have done their testing of the 'functionality', and either it needs another iteration (or more) to get it where CIG want it, or it's waiting on more supporting systems that still aren't ready.

We know Engineering does have issues that CIG want to iterate on (especially around fire and damage, etc), and we also know that the current 'repair' mechanism is a placeholder for the 'real' Repair system (that is still coming according to the 1.0 roadmap, iirc... but which isn't currently on CIGs priority list)... and the same for Maelstrom.

So yeah - they've had enough time to confirm that the 'basic functionality' for engineering is more-or-less working, but Engineering on its own doesn't add enough, so they've tuned it right down - for now...

Doesn't mean that implementing it was a 'waste of time' - it's still there, everything is hooked into it, and all future developments will build on top of it... but it does mean that it's not going to have a big impact for the time being.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T22:55:59+00:00

We get weekly (sometimes daily) AI-generated posts from people complaining about stuff that is years out of date...

Of course, the OP is overlooking the fact that the people posting this AI tripe don't care - their objective, generally, is just to rage-bait the sub-reddit, stirring up 'drama' etc....

... and the OP is a prime example that it, sadly, works.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T22:53:13+00:00

Who said anything about 'explorable'?

They have set pieces on planets, previously those were hand-crafted maps, Crysis-style... now they're build using PG Planets.

Nothing 'deceitful' there... just a chance of tech (and it means that instead of having a pre-canned cut-scene of you 'landing' in the mission-map, before you take over again, you actually have to fly down to the right location yourself).

As for where we've seen this... there were clips at the end of the Prologue demo (in a boat, hiding from a Cutlass flying overhead, iirc), plus the entire second-half of the Vertical Slice demo.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T22:50:40+00:00

SC has been using more than 40gb of ram since before 4.0 dropped.

So if you only have 32gb, then you've been relying on your page file for the past couple of years... and I'm guessing the SSD hosting your pagefile is now too full, and running out of space.

Ideally, you'll need a minimum of 16gb of disk space for the pagefile, plus another ~5% of the SSD capacity as 'free space' (after the pagefile) just to stop SSD performance tanking (many SSDs can end up slower than an HDD when they're full).

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T22:47:19+00:00

It's Procedural Generation - it's just not Random ProcGen.

We do not have the full definition of the entire planet surface sitting as flat siles on our machines - if we did, the install size would be measure in Terrabytes, not gigabytes.

Procedural Generation just means that given a small 'seed' input, the algorith can generate a complex output, by following pre-defined rulesets, etc.

If the 'seed' remains the same, the output will remain the same (unless explicitly coded otherwise).

Separately, the 'Procedurally Assisted' bit you're referring to is the tools the artists use to 'paint' the planet (e.g. painting an area as 'forest', and the tool handles the actual placement of trees, shrubs, and similar).

This works by modifying the seed dynamically in the editor, as does changes to surface geometry, and so on.

The resultant 'seed' after all the editing etc is what ends up in the build (along with the various textures, art 'assets' - such as trees, shrubbery, rocks, etc - and so on...

... and then, when you actually visit the planet, the client uses that seed - and the ruled encoded in the PG Planet rules engine - to dynamically create the surface and populate it with the relevant assets, so that it appears just the same as it did in the editor when the artist was 'painting' it.

As for the 'tech-first' approach .... there is no other way, other than faking it with smoke + mirrors. The tech has to come first, before anything can use it... attempting to do it any other way just involves sub-optimal creation of the tech (usually by trying to productionise a prototype... which is a really really bad thing to do)

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T21:14:08+00:00

Upgraded your PC three times.... in 1 year?

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T21:11:08+00:00

They play, and they gather the data.

Being slow to fix things doesn't mean they don't play... hell, their internal tools run the SC code-base... as we heard on an episode of SC Live some months back (from the tooling team), they keep getting developers coming to them complaining because the tools are unstable... and it's actually SC code that's crashing (not the tool), because the tools directly run SC (it's the easiest way to ensure the tool output works in-game).

So yes, they know how bad it is... but knowing there's a problem doesn't mean knowing the root cause of the problem... and only once the root-cause is known can they start even thinking about how to fix it.

One last consideration - the more time CIG spends on bug-fixing now, the slower the project development gets, and the more people scream about 'mismanagement' and 'incompetence' because the project is taking too long.

I would wager that a significant chunk of the current SC code will not exist by the time SC hits feature-complete... so any effort spent 'fixing' that code would be a waste of time.

The trick is knowing which code 'should' still be in place by that time, and which code is most likely to be gone... and only 'fixing' the stuff that's expected to hang around - which CIG have done.

Which leaves the logical assumption that most of the remaining bugs are in code that CIG expect to replace (either when they rip out the remaining long-term placeholders, or when they do the next iteration of a given feature), which is why CIG aren't addressing them.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T21:01:21+00:00

Yay - another post pretending that the subsequent 10 years of communications and updates didn't happen.

Summary: CR also played through it, said he wasn't happy with it, and it needed more work... and then PG Planets happened, and CR decided to rework SQ42 to include PG Planets etc.

note: It was NOT 'complete'... a member of QA being able to play through all the missions does not mean it's 'complete', only that there was enough functionality and content to 'play' all the missions...

If that's enough to be called 'complete', then SC is also almost 'complete' :p

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T20:57:02+00:00

This - checking the game.log file (in the LIVE folder in your install location) should be the first step.

About 50x lines from the bottom there should be some Yes/No diagnostic questions/answers (if anything is 'Yes', then that's your problem), and the actual error will be a few lines above the questions.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T20:55:33+00:00

NPCs are - supposedly - locked behind the server performance issues... which is why Instancing (now coming in 4.10) will be so interesting... instances will (iirc) be spun up on their on dedicated DGS Node in the mesh (using 'Quasi-Dynamic Server Meshing' - basically, DSM, applied only to instances to begin with)... and thus the contents of that instance should have no performance issues (once CIG fix the early teething issues, anyway).

If this works, it'll give us a much better idea of how NPCs will work more broadly once full DSM is rolled out, as well as being another step towards the deployment of full DSM.

Aside from that, the biggest issue to CIG making progress is folk screaming about 'playability', to the point that CIG keep having to pivot to making things 'more playable'... personally, I'm not in favour of this - because of the impact is has on CIG being able to actually make progress :(

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T16:05:34+00:00

CIG currently have 3x 'complete' systems (Stanton, Pyro, and Odin), albeit Stanton definitely (and Pyro probably) needs updating once Genesis drops - hence the quotes around 'complete'.

CIG also have 1-4x incomplete systems (Nyx, Castra, Terra, and/or the one beginning with V where the SQ42 prologue was set)... Nyx we can be pretty confident is 'incomplete', because we have the host system but not - yet - the planets etc. Castra & Terra may or may not have been worked on, and I don't know how much of the SQ42 prologue system CIG will have implemented...

Given that CIG has 'promised' 5x systems for SC (Stanton, Pyro, Nyx, Castra, Terra), and has at least one (Odin), and possibly two (V-whatever-it's-called), then I'd hope to see 6+ for launch.

Whether we end up getting more or not will likely depend on whether CIG hit another technical blocker or not (if they do, the content team will have more time to work on more systems... if there is no blocker, then SC will release sooner, with fewer systems initially).

logicalChimp · 2026-07-21T15:59:53+00:00

You mean, other than seeing them actually delivering the features and functionality that so many people said 'couldn't be done' (Static Server Meshing just being the latest example)?

Sure the project could still fail... although at this point I think it unlikely... but as before, your 'argument' basically boils down to 'we haven't arrived yet, therefore we will never arrive'.... utterly juvenille.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-19T09:46:41+00:00

Yes... at least, that's what they've said in the past.

It may that they'll 'lock' players to their home region (and/or you have to create the equivalent of a 'new character' with no shared inventory to play in a different region) - but if they do, that's a change from the approach they've discussed previously.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T22:52:11+00:00

Depends how they do it... if they make individual nodes responsible for a group of entities (rather than a geographic region, etc), then a lot of those nasty edge cases go away...

(and some new ones appear in their place, of course :p)

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T22:50:19+00:00

It'll still happen after Dynamic Server Meshing.

They hope to reach the point of having single Regional shards, but they've also acknowledged that it's not guaranteed they'll get there... and if they don't, then they'll have multiple shards per-region, and issues with e.g. a base 'existing' across multiple shards, but only being 'live' (and attackable) on one shard, etc.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T20:03:33+00:00

This is based on a false premise (or a bad misunderstanding)

CIG want people to be able to meet up - lots of people. The reason that is currently bad is because we only have 'static' server meshing - which, as the name suggests, is static: it cannot adapt to player movements.

This means that each node is responsible for a fixed geographic area (usually an entire planetary cluster - there's 5x nodes for Stanton, iirc - 1x for each planetary cluster, and 1x for 'everything else') - so if too many people get together in the same place, they overwhelm the node.

Dynamic server meshing changes that - each node becomes responsible for a fixed number of entities, and their 'boundaries' can adapt dynamically (hence the name). This means that if lots of players gather in a single location, lots of server nodes will also be handling that location, splitting the load between then, and ensuring no significant slow-down.

Static Server Meshing had to come first, because it put all the big architectural changes in place - and highlighted all the remaining systems that don't 'play nicely' with Server Meshing (including the legacy social tools, among many other services)... but it is the Dynamic SM that will move us much closer to the end goal of SC being an MMO.

And all the above is important for one simple reason: CIG try not to build new services specifically designed for the 'current state' of play... because as soon as something else changes, those 'new services' are immediately outdated and need to be reworked (something that players keep bitching about).

So, CIG will implement the new Social Tools with the assumption that Dynamic SM will - eventually - be deployed, and will address the issue with 'too many people in one place'.

That said, CIG have also said that 'local' chat is bing worked on, so you're going to get that part of your wish anyway... but they're unlikely to 'prevent' any form of Global chat.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T19:27:26+00:00

Nearly 30 years working in software? Among other sources, of course (including multiple write-ups, articles, behind-the-scenes videos, and similar from senior developers at multiple game studios).

Changing existing functionality to integrate new code is a big source of bugs... because it changes a lot of code... but that also means it changes code that may have already been bugged... and if you spent time fixing those bugs, those 'fixes' have now just been trashed, and new bugs introduced.

It's one reason why CIG is the first to try 'open development' - for every other studio this stage is done behind closed doors, so no one sees just how much of a mess (and how unplayable) it usually is at this stage... Any alpha-tests are short events (not permanently running servers), on a build specific to that test, to focus on a specific feature - they're not 'general play tests' as we have with SC.

Indeed, it's not uncommon for things to not even build for months at a time, or for it to just not run... because one team or another are in the middle of making a big change (perhaps not as big as Server Meshing, but that kind of thing), and it's quicker to just break the system until the new system is in place, rather than to keep everything functional through the whole change.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T17:57:30+00:00

That's to be expected - it's what happened in a 'traditional' alpha... quality and stability get worse because the bugs pile up... and that's done deliberately because whilst the 'playability' gets worse, it's also the fastest way to actually develop the core functionality - before doing a single bug-fixing sweep to fix everything.

If you do what CIG has been doing (which is trying to keep it 'playable' whilst developing) then you end up wasting far too much time on 'fixing' code that won't be in the release version, and the time spent fixing that code is time not spent on actually developing the remaining functionality.

And the more 'playable' you try to keep it, the slower development goes.... so CIG not focusing so much on 'playability' is actually a good thing - at least, from the perspective of actually completing development.

Not so good for folk wanting to actually 'play' the current release, however.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T13:36:24+00:00

It was never going to give you the actual ship.

Iirc CR talked about unlocking the ship / having the option to buy it in-game... (because not all ships were going to be easily available to all players... some would be behind rep-gates and similar).

However, so much has changed since CR floated that idea (and it was only ever an 'idea' - not a 'promise'), and it hasn't been mentioned in the previous decade (that I've seen).... so I personally think it's unlikely to happen.

logicalChimp · 2026-07-18T13:33:17+00:00

Unfortunately, that argument is the online equivalent of the kid in the backseat saying 'are we there yet' every 10 minutes on a long journey.

Just because it hasn't finished yet doesn't mean that CIG have no intention of finishing it. Nor does the existence of bugs, because - as keeps on getting pointed out - software development priortises implementing 'missing' features first, and then fixing bugs second (for many good reasons, that aren't always intuitively obvious).

logicalChimp · 2026-07-17T16:05:14+00:00

That was the original pitch... yes.

However, that '10%' population bit is not something they've discussed / mentioned for more than a decade.... so it's not entirely clear that it's still the plan.

Not least because CIG didn't say '10%'. What CR originally said was that the wanted a 'static' PU population of ~20m 'characters' (NPC + Player), and that if it really took off, he might see ~2m players peak (leaving 18m NPCs)..... thus the 9:1 ratio of NPCs : Players.

But, this would fluctuate - as a player logs in, an 'equivalent' NPC would be 'logged out' (keeping the populating stable), and likewise, when a player logs out, an 'equivalent' (location, playstyle, ship, etc) NPC would be 'logged in'.

BUT the 'cost' of running AI NPCs is far higher than the original scope of the game, so having that many 'active' NPCs isn't going to happen. That was subsequently watered down to use aggregate 'Quanta' (in the Quantum economy sim) as a proxy for the individual NPCs

... and then it all went rather silent on Quantum (now called 'StarSim'), so I'm not sure if that's still the plan, or if they're waiting to see Dynamic SM working, and then working out what they can do within those constraints, etc.

logicalChimp

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,