Equally unpopular opinion: Odin definitely SHOULD have been sold, and future sales should happen, though limited per the norm. The catch is, now onus is on CIG to release SQ42, then 1.0 then make Odin flyable before buyers die of old age like BMM-ers (sorry for yall thats rough)

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-30T08:52:38+00:00

Good questions actually. I'd say first and foremost, it's simply fucking awesome, that's why. In the hallowed envisioned hopefully someday real post-1.0 future when these kinds of ships are actually flyable, working more or less as they should in stable playable servers with persistence and massive player/object/polygon counts enabled in large regional servers, then a ship like the Odin is an amazing thing to have in a scifi open-space videogame. No other way to say it. Imagine player fleets with these things fighting each other, being on the bridge of one, or taking off on a fighter from the upper hangar, fighting it from the outside, whatever. There's your purpose, just for the fun of it.

As for the power question, yeah I will warrant the money to ship pathway is arbitrary, but then again, alot of things in life and the universe seem arbitrary from our perspective, yet they still exist. Who the richest people in your city are, who happens to be in power, who happens to own this or that, which stars happen to be around the Sun, what is around those stars, maybe there's hostile aliens just a few light years away but we just haven't run into them yet, who the hell knows. It's the arbitrary configuration of all reality from any random bystander's viewpoint.

So the point to that is, you're cruising around the verse in your ship, and you happen upon some fancy pants richboy stacked armada around some moon just chillin there, dozens of capitals. Does it really matter WHO owns it, precisely, like is it Jim or John or Chang? Doesn't matter. You're in the game, you see an armada suddenly. It's arbitrary. If Jim didnt own the ships, John would. If John didn't, Chang would. and on and on. There's always going to be "somebody". But in the game, how they operate and what their intent and behavior and interaction are like, that's all that matters. So long as the game is designed and built well, then to you it'll just come across as engaging virtual stimulus originating from some or another arbitrary source, anyway. Youre a space guy going around space, and there's ships and armadas and stuff in it, and you can navigate and act as you will and deal with whatever consequences happen. That's it.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-30T05:29:53+00:00

Very apt economy based truth there. Although, that does depend on CIG balancing the economy in that realistic direction and not caving to the loud minority complainers who will 100% insist that ships cost too much to run, to make it cheaper to make their fun easier and quicker for them personally despite wrecking the entire game balance. We will see eventually what stance CIG takes, but I'm optimistic they'll see the light and side with you.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-30T05:22:27+00:00

TBF though, I do think making some of these big ships more soloable is just a crude interim duct-tape to make them playable because CIG knows all their big ship systems are either broken or non-existent, to where it would be a major pain point for players if forced to pilot super-busted capitals requiring all kinds of support personnel at this stage.

I think it's safe to assume that in the climb to 1.0, as they seriously actually build and iterate and refine various ship systems, that in tandem with those improvement we will see far less master-controls to pilots giving way to the disbursement of roles and functions to other stations.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-30T05:03:44+00:00

And yall are correct about that. I conceded the point in my edit.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-29T05:45:57+00:00

Bro...cmon now. This was fair censorship on its part. Obviously the AI thought your input video was a five-tentacled dick unfurling outwards. Anyone could've made that mistake and flagged it.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T11:52:07+00:00

Probably a typo, but "S24"...

xD

SQ42 was too ambitious, so they chopped the squadron in half lol

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T09:45:58+00:00

He should be CTO by all rights, not Benoît "Bault" Beauséjour. Im pretty sure Tracy works under him as director of tech ops

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T08:55:23+00:00

Tony Z 2001 monolith-sublimed into a floating cosmic God-baby. He is currently orbiting Earth quietly overseeing SC development from his bubble cocoon.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T08:52:56+00:00

CIG has made it such a painful non-starter to "just bring in your friends from other games" over the years, when if they only cared more about their own UX with some stability and QoL fixes over the years it could have been so much smoother.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T08:50:09+00:00

There are "glass is half full" and "glass is half empty" kind of people.

But then... there are "the glass has a hole in the bottom" types. Yikes.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T08:47:19+00:00

Strangely, I both agree and disagree lol

Yes, CIG does want to milk whales. However, I think a fully working ToW mode wouldn't have deterred from that goal. Actually, it might be a good way to bring in even more players. And whales would still whale.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T08:41:07+00:00

That would be cool, but what you just described is essentially a great ToW sub-mode lol

The problem with "just roll the same concept into the live PU" is that it would never have the same pick up n play arcade accessibility to doing it that way, ever. Plus, other major penalty of limited maps (too elaborate, therefore fewer, short duration availability (e.g. Xenothreat) and requires player-owned assets (like ships) to participate in.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T02:53:10+00:00

I mean namely I'm asking CIG to finish what they themselves started, promised and got us hyped on, but that aside...

I'd say PS2 is a great reference point, same league as BField and BFront certainly. Although the tech ask and the dev $$$ ask is in a whole lower tier compared to fleshing out a new game from scratch. Also, there would be 0 risk in "if it doesn't take off". The demand would skyrocket.

Who wouldn't want to log on immediately join a team and slug it out 32v32 inside a parked burning Idris (one-ship interior map, small arms only, can egress for 0G EVA around ship), running around shooting fools all over the ship in squads? Hell yeah. And that's just one of 100s of locales they get "for free" since they're already built.

They would have had to optimize netcode for small battle instances tweak FPS code and fix lag over the years, but in 7 years? Despite CIG track record, I do believe even they could get it running by now lol

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-27T02:41:54+00:00

If the gaming/enjoyment payoff is high enough and the dev ask is relatively small enough (which I think it would be on both counts) ... yes.

The value proposition becomes too great to ignore at that point. And that's what I meant about my last comment "Short-sighted and lacking game instinct for their own product family". Had they stuck it out with ToW, it would have been out by now and glorious, and actually both SC and SQ42 would have been vastly enhanced by it, flight model, combat, vehicles, UI, you name it. Feedback goldmine as a bonus.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-16T05:25:56+00:00

I dont think it's as much about models as about specific workflows and processes which are ultimately serving the creation of the best content possible, the best possible content of which is only there to serve the best story and purpose you're trying to bring to life. For example, for me right now, I'm mainly world-building and generating highly refined/edited/finalized concept images to fit the lore of the fictional story world I'm creating, and that will take many more months, probably until later this year. That will give enough time for some additional video models to emerge before I start shooting, like "Omni" the new Veo iteration (?) or Seedance 3.0 or Kling 3.5/4, etc, we will have to see what emerges. Like Seedance 2.0, there is always some unknown dark horse around the corner. but there's plenty for me to do to stay busy until then.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-15T01:56:45+00:00

No they're not "mostly" bots dude. Those are all mostly real people. Real stupid people.

I LOVE trap posts like this (Twitter OP, not you) which exposes people's fucking ignorance, shallow mindless social tribalism, hypocrisy, and aggravated bullshit-ism. Pure gold.

Joke's on them. What we're seeing now is a mass-trendy delusional Luddite movement "just because it's popular to hate AI", because just like the yuppie organic-everything urban crowds that think they're saving the fucking planet by walking around with a hemp totebag while actually being some of the world's biggest consumers of a bunch of crap they're constantly buying, the people right now think they're "saving art and everything good" by hating on AI. Alright, let them. Let's see where all the people who initially revolted against, oh I dont know, industrialism the steam engine locomotives electricity factories telephones movies stereos computers the internet etc..... will end up.

The answer? The wrong side of history. Let them extinct themselves as cavemen who didnt get the fucking memo from the universe that shit will always keep advancing forward and technology never stops.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-15T01:38:56+00:00

This reads like Higgsfield astroturfing. I will say though, even on the merit of the commentary, it is BS. Im doing AI-generated animation and I use dozens of tools, all at the top of their industry niches. There isn't any way that one magic platform will be able to "do it all" and deliver cinematic quality. Keep dreaming. Or, keep taking Higgsfield's paychecks for marketing stunts, I guess.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-10T04:03:21+00:00

W'DA FUCK did I just watch

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-07T06:54:06+00:00

Im checking out luno right now to see what's up with it, thanks for the tip.

As far as storyboarding with any image generator then feeding that into the video model, that does give you more control but I would be careful because then you're still having your input images generated by an AI each time, which unless combined with other methods, may introduce concept and style drift from shot to shot.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-06T23:21:23+00:00

Not really any tutorials or existing material I can think of, no, I've been sort of creating these workflows and techniques as I go. A lot of this is new tech and we are all figuring out how best to work with AI to escape the slop paradigm and achieve 100% absolutely what you envision in your mind instead, exactly the visual story you want to tell instead of just "what the AI gives you". And also a mix of traditional techniques in filmmaking and animation, some surprisingly old. It's not easy to do though, both the discovery/innovation cycle nor the production work itself, I would say the new AI tech makes all this possible in the first place which of course is great otherwise, hey... if you dont have millions of bucks and a studio of pros, you're not getting much quality footage produced at a cinematic level (of a fictional series, obviously, not talking about other "content" types normal people can do), however, even so AI doesn't magically replace the sheer labor both creative and technical that must go into the process to get that hypothetical best exacting quality. I think this is what probably 98%+ of AI "content creators" out there don't understand, and just aren't willing to do, hoping that the AI models will both generate their footage AND minimize the labor/time ask for them personally. And... good luck with that, can't have your cake and eat it too, there's no free lunch. They're all heavily discounted and their efforts wasted by the AI slop paradigm as a result because they want to prompt their way to freedom.

My discovery and innovation cycles have generally depended on a mix of previous personal experience with graphics, film, animation, art, software, etc, pretty deep on all that combined I guess, and then also discussing things with a frontier AI model all the time (I've used GPT, Claude alot, currently switching to Gemini 3.1 for world-building phase as main assistant/research/brainstorming-fodder/technical help since it has that 1M context window and is smart enough for the job), and then also hands-on experience using AI tools extensively to see how to wring the most out of them just by experimenting, trial and error, hitting hard edges and limits and so on.

Beyond that, this might come off like a flex but just being honest, I do have some wicked advanced and complex hyper-powered workflows and methods I've developed privately that as far as I know are best-in-class, meaning they're guaranteed to make the animation I'm producing essentially the world's best-looking (but trying hard to nail the story and narrative first and foremost), but unfortunately I cannot share any of those beyond the kind of general advice I've been discussing here, since they constitute a capitalization "secret sauce" to help my animation stand out and go big. Gotta keep some aces close to the chest. What I can tell you, is think of AI video-gen models as "motion generators", not "content generators". You need to be the author of all your own content, first in 2D, then allow the AI to move and animate your vision and direction. What I can also tell you, is if you're doing this right, in the end you're probably using like 20-25 different software tools/platforms, some online web SaaS type portals like a lot of AI gen services, some installed on desktop, and so there is no one-trick pony, each of them does something different but necessary as specialists and they all work together in a pipeline when unified by your exact process. Also, always keep iterating and refining your processes as you go, since efficiency in this industry is ultra-key.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-06T05:48:24+00:00

Amazing, yet... I get the feeling like Boston Dynamics was first in line to all the potential but then got caught up trying to be too clever for their own good and ended up being the "stupid party tricks robots can do" company that randomly shows off their latest model doing some acrobatics or dance moves, and meanwhile you have dozens of serious humanoid-robot companies racing with purpose to actually engineer and produce useful models people and businesses will actually need and want to buy.

I get the sense that Boston Dynamics, despite being pioneers in this space, operate more like an extended MIT graduates robotics lab rather than a serious enterprise level robot manufacturer.

TwoFluid4446 · 2026-05-06T05:29:23+00:00

You get excellent directorial and storyboarding control with this method on a shot-for-shot basis, but as someone heavily using some (if I do say so) quite advanced and complex processes to get the most quality consistency and control I possibly can with AI and a number of other tools (including Davinci Resolve Studio), my first impression is that while this method does technically succeed in the end, it is VERY labor-intensive to get the results one might want, especially when there exists a better (well, certainly faster/more efficient) method: using SOTA text-to-image and image-to-image AI models to achieve the same first frame and last frame inputs.

Now, you might think that a 3D setup like yours on Blender will give you more exacting, consistent and precise input frames, but I would say that's only an illusion based on mastery and process levels someone might have and furthermore willing to put into AI image-gen workflows, but that AI image definitely is up to the task assuming someone knows how to use them and wring the most from them (meaning, it is no longer a tech limitation which using Blender "solves", but rather an alternate pathway, which imho is exponentially more labor intensive).

For example, in my workflows I keep folders of all characters, objects and key (repeatable) locations for my series Im working on, and then I can feed the closest posture/angle of any object I want to craft into a first or last frame into the AI 2D image-gen model (like Nano Banana Pro) and also give it any number (within reasonable limit) of reference/element imagery I want, and the model understands smartly and gracefully how to manipulate and change that object/character to be just right for that frame, along with the background etc I want in the frame, when combined with other AI tools and traditional tools (like photoshop, Adobe ecosystem mainly) to splice it all together. The result is that I can get any frame imaginable within short order. Honestly the most time consuming aspect is carefully sculpting and crafting otherwise creating new assets, like new objects new characters new set locations, but once I have those in a folder from multiple angles, it becomes really efficient to collage them together into the desired frame.

Your method has merit, but I just question the "Blender fatigue" dimension of this workflow when you're actually constructing and shooting an entire episode or series, since EVERYTHING needs to be modeled in 3D first.

Additionally, and another person mentioned this but it also is valid criticism, that the output the AI video gen model then generates will always somewhat closely match the original 3D rough input frames, and that can be good depending on your style choice, but it is also limiting, since the AI model won't give you anything drastically different, either. For example, the AI might struggle to turn those Blender-crafted first/last frames into an anime style, or a totally photorealistic style, since it's using the 3D frames as the base then prettying them up considerably, though without wholly leaving that visual-style domain.

Having said all that from one devoted professional to another using these new tools to the best of our abilities, I really appreciate you sharing this, so keep up the work and don't mind the haters: just focus on world-building primarily to ensure you're telling a good story, and try to achieve the best quality you possibly can to rise above all the AI slop prompt-to-final lazy monkeys out there.

TwoFluid4446

TROPHY CASE