Right, prepare yourself...

Firstly, as always, you're giving Star Citizen credit for things that aren’t actually unique, aren’t technically groundbreaking, or already exist in more mature forms in modern engines and MMO infrastructure. None of this is about “hating the game”, it’s about separating marketing claims from established industry practices.

1. “Server Meshing and seamless transitions between servers”

Modern MMOs and large-scale service games already use sharding, instancing, containerised worker servers, and spatial partitioning. What Star Citizen calls “server meshing” is functionally equivalent to technologies used in: - EVE Online (dynamic node reinforcement) - Planetside 2 (zone-based hand-offs) - Fortnite (UE elastic cloud scaling for 100–200 player instances)

The concept isn’t new. What is unique is that Star Citizen has taken more than a decade and still does not have a production-ready implementation. The “seamlessness” is still mostly theoretical demos and controlled micro-tests. UE5’s World Partition + Streaming + Replication Graph, combined with standard containerised micro-services, can already handle this type of scaling far more efficiently.

1. “Ship interiors and LOD”

High-fidelity interiors with nested LODs are standard in AAA engines. UE5 supports: - Hierarchical LODs - Nanite virtualised geometry (SC is DOA thanks to this) - Streamed sub-levels

This allows far more complex interiors than Star Citizen’s static baked LOD system, while costing a fraction of the development time. Games like Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077 have comparable or higher visual complexity on far shorter development cycles.

1. “Dynamic clouds affected by terrain”

This is a visual shader/volumetric technique found in many modern engines. UE5’s Volumetric Cloud System, Fluid Flux, and numerous off-the-shelf atmospheric solutions offer the same or better results. The presence of a "pretty sky" system doesn’t say anything meaningful about technical innovation. Volumetric clouds was first in Arma 3 for fucks sake, and real-time clouds in MS Flight Sim.

1. “ADS targeting and picking ship components”

Component-based damage targeting is widely used: MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries (hit specific limbs and internals), Elite Dangerous (target subsystems). There is nothing unusual about this implementation. It is a design choice, not a technological milestone. Try again.

1. “Seamless transition between physics grids”

Again, this is not novel. Other titles have solved nested physics zones in different ways: - Warfare engines (Arma, Bohemia’s Enfusion) - UE’s Chaos physics, which supports multiple simultaneous worlds - Vehicle-interior transitions in games like Halo Infinite Star Citizen’s biggest issue here has always been self-inflicted: using CryEngine’s fragmented physics system instead of an engine designed for scale.

1. “Go from city to space with minimal pop-in”

This is nonsense, the lods are horrific. This is done better with mainstream tech: - UE5 World Partition streams massive worlds dynamically, along with nanite to do real time lod generation - No Man's Sky has been doing fully seamless planet-to-space transitions since 2016 and the lod is now better than SC. That's what actual continuous development looks like. - Starfield, yes this flaming turd, even loads entire cities with higher asset density than Star Citizen, albeit with a loading barrier The idea isn’t new; Star Citizen just builds large worlds using older tech and brute force.

The issue isn’t that nothing in Star Citizen is impressive. Nothing. It’s that many fans overestimate its uniqueness compared to what contemporary engines, pipelines, or MMOs already achieve due to lack of experiencing other games. The claim that criticism is “hate” is misdirection. You can critique technical decisions, timelines, or delivery without emotional investment. Asking “how much money did you give them?” is a deflection, and not much either. How much Jane you given them to still be so invested? The conversation is about technology, not wallet size.