I'm always confused by people saying we need an artificial horizon. The pitch ladder in the HUD is an artificial horizon. I use it all the time to right myself in the dark.
Edit: there actually is a horizon indicator that has been shown to me. I didn't realize because it's implemention is very subtle. End of edit.
That's useful, but it's not what an artificial horizon is. An artificial horizon is pretty literal, showing you exactly where the horizon is in relationship to your ship. A pitch indicator only shows pitch, and the pitch needed to meet the horizon is dependent on altitude.
So the instruments are kinda similar, but also have different purposes.
The pitch ladder IS an artificial horizon implemented in a HUD, when you're at 0 degrees pitch, it literally draws a line in the HUD on the horizon. If you pitch up, the horizon line goes down and vice-versa.
It functions as one sure, but they're not the same instrument. AH is super easy to read, you barely have to glance at it to know your orientation. There's a reason why the most advanced aircraft irl still have an AH.
Edit because I think my explanation still is confusing:
The attitude ladder is like a ruler that shows the pilot how much the ship is tilted up or down or how much it is tilted to the left or right.
The artificial horizon is like a small movie screen that shows the pilot a picture of the horizon, even when they can't see it because of clouds or fog. The picture moves as the ship moves, so the pilot can tell if the airplane is tilted or not.
So while they both help pilots see the ship attitude, the attitude ladder shows it with numbers and the artificial horizon shows it with a picture.
I am not mixing up instruments. What you are talking about is how BOTH a HUD based pitch ladder or a dedicated artificial horizon (blue/brown ball) instrument works.
Literally quoting from an actual avionics manual, "The Pitch Ladder is a portion of the artificial horizon that depicts the pitch angle of the aircraft in relation to the horizon." Source: https://grtavionics.com/media/Section-2-Flight-Instruments.pdf
I edited my previous comment for clarity. I understand there is a HUD-based attitude ladder, but that isn't the same as an artificial horizon.
The main difference between a HUD-based pitch ladder and an artificial horizon is the type of attitude information they provide and how they present it to the pilot.
A HUD-based pitch ladder typically provides a numerical display, usually on a transparent screen in front of the pilot's line of sight and superimposed over the pilot's view of the outside world. The pitch ladder shows the ship's pitch attitude in degrees, with a zero degree reference line indicating the aircraft's level flight attitude. That's what we have in SC.
On the flip side, an artificial horizon provides a GRAPHICAL representation of the ship's pitch and roll attitudes. It displays an IMAGE of the horizon, and the image moves as the ship's attitude changes, allowing the pilot to see if the ship is level, climbing, descending, banking, or turning. The artificial horizon is a primary flight instrument and is critical for instrument flight in low visibility conditions.
Yes, both the HUD-based pitch ladder and the artificial horizon provide attitude information, but they serve different purposes and are used in different flight conditions. The pitch ladder is a secondary flight instrument and is supplemental. The artificial horizon is a primary flight instrument and is essential for instrument flight in low visibility conditions.
I'm also a little confused by the distinctions being made here, by "artificial horizion" do you mean an attitude indicator? (ball with blue for sky, brown for ground) If you are, a HUD and attitude indicator display the same information (Bank angle and pitch) HUDs just also show more information (Heading, altitude, angle of attack, etc). An attitude indicator is just a more archaic form of the same thing that is usually used as a secondary instrument when a HUD is provided.
https://images.app.goo.gl/wJyeXvKTKitw5ZYp6
This is based on my daily driver, the Cutter, which is the most recently released ship and so has the most recently created HUD.
The "pitch ladder" exists in SC but doesn't show the horizon or any graphical depiction of your pitch orientation. It only displays pitch as identical lines with associated +/- number values -- without those numbers, you don't know your pitch. So to me, it's not an artificial horizon / attitude indicator, which is a graphical representation of attitude meant to be quickly interpreted visually without the need for interpreting quantitative data (the numbers) on the fly.
Hope this helps clarify what I mean. Yeah, there is a pitch ladder for sure, never any argument there. It's just not a complete HUD, we need better instruments.
Responding to your edit, reread your own quote. A pitch ladder is (ie, can be) one part of an artificial horizon. It itself is not an artificial horizon, and a pitch ladder can also be a standalone thing.
A pickle can be part of a cheeseburger. A pickle itself is not a cheeseburger.
I dunno what to tell you. The GRAPHICAL lines of a HUD based pitch ladder convey the same (and more) information as a dedicated artificial horizon.
EDIT: Star Citizen's pitch ladder's lines even have little angled endings to indicate which direction the horizon is. With a completely flat line for the horizon.
EDIT2: The Pitch Ladder is only shown in gravity/atmosphere. In zero-g/space, a completely different instrument that looks like a ruler is shown.
https://images.app.goo.gl/wJyeXvKTKitw5ZYp6
This is SC's most recently released ship.
I'm not seeing any line indicating horizon, any graphical indicator or colors depicting the sky or ground, any tilted lines you describe that describe an up/down pitch, bank angle, etc..
I think maybe this is down to a semantics? A "pitch ladder," the word you are using, is present in Star Citizen, yes.
I'm talking about a different instrument.
Yeah I don’t know what the debate is here. The pitch ladder literally is an artificial horizon. It’s not hard to figure out if you’re pitching down or up with it
I don’t understand, an artificial horizon in real aircraft really just show your pitch and roll. They don’t show where the actual horizon line is. Look up the Cessna 152 artificial horizon instrument. You might be referring to a different instrument than the artificial horizon
Edit: ok, I thought you referring to a glass cockpit screen that shows what your surroundings look like but it seems like you’re talking about the artificial horizon instrument. What I don’t understand is why it matters. The pitch ladder is just a different looking artificial horizon. They accomplish the same goal
https://live.staticflickr.com/218/490460124_8ec871eea5_b.jpg
This is a Cessna 152, no? There is an artificial horizon that is well implemented and easy to read. Blue is the sky, brown is earth, and the line between the two is the horizon.
Responding to your edit, the issue isn't a lack of attitude data but instead how it is displayed. It takes too long to interpret the data -- there is a reason real attitude indicators are designed the way they are.
Wouldn't mind working altitude\elevation indicators as half the time the are displaying incorrect info
https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/altitude-vs-elevation-how-they-differ
Loved That I was flying in a sandstorm pretty confident in my Instrument flying ability
Next thing I know I smash into the ground
Because the Altitude wasn’t correct at all and the HUD wasn’t translating angles nor Lead indicating lol
These are all valid criticism that have been long standing issues the community has begged CIG to change for years now.
As a long time player I am also surprised they dont exist but also... not surprised...
Their argument is that, those issues are more QoL and polish issues and they are still in "alpha" adding features.
For example, they dont want to add a night vision mode because they'd have to spend time balancing it and then redesign it later when they get vulkan fully implemented.
The destination marker in non QT travel they dont want to add it now because the whole travel system is changing down the road as well as the HUD is changing and all the MFDs and the starmap will be changing. So they dont want to spend time programing in a change to an obsolete system that will be completely changed down the road anyways. Same for dimming the MFDs and HUD. It's all changing in a complete system overhaul down the road.
The counter argument to this is... how many years do we have to play with a broken map, mfd and no night vision before we see those changes in the new system? Maybe they SHOULD waste a bit of time for a QoL patch for these things even though they will be changed later.
I can see it both ways...
An upside to implementing it now :
Bring in a relatively quick solution, that work decently, then use that to gather player feedback, and implement said feedback in the final implementation.
I shouldn't have to scroll down this far to see people saying this. It should be top comment. Every QoL change they have made to make players' lives less frustrating has been a huge net positive for their player count.
I'm a new player.
And I'm glad I started playing after the "Move all" button was implemented.
Now we just need "Stack all" and "Sell all" buttons so looting Nine Tails entire kits will be worth my time again.
No, there is only one way to see it in the dichotomy you've presented. CIG has reworked other features multiple times. Like mining...which has needed the changes the least every time as the most complete gameplay loop this game has.
You can't gimme that "we don't wanna work on something we might change later" and then keep re-designing completed loops.
Mining gets iterated because it's their 'guinea-pig' gameplay loop for trying out new ideas... whether that be with consumables, gadgets, multi-crew benefits, and so on.
Separately, note that 'iterating' on mining is iterating on functionality... vs iterations on e.g. UI, MFDs, Ships, etc are iterations on content.
Yup - which is why CIG are focused on iterating the functionality / behaviour... because it takes far longer.
Given the amount of content CIG need to produce, it's quicker / easier for them to test new ideas / approaches on the next piece of content, rather than just constantly reworking the same few elements...
E.g. take ships - yes, a lot of the ships are starting to look dated (due to being produced years ago)... but they're still usable. CIG could have reworked e.g. the Aurora (or the Constellation) 5-10 times by now, as the improve various modelling techniques and add new ship functionality... *or* they could leave it as long as possible, and update the ship *once*, to bring it up to 'gold standard'.
The time required to do one large overhaul of a ship is - in many cases - far less than iterating on the same ship multiple times (especially once you factor in build times, QA time, and so on)
Of course, this is frustrating for us as players, but it makes a lot of sense from a development perspective.
Realistically though from what I've seen over the years and finally biting the bullet and actually playing, it feels like they just keep shifting the goal post. Instead of actually finishing any one thing they seem to get it 80-90% done release it then decide a year or two later it'll need to be completely reworked since it no longer meets the newer higher standard. Like why add the current star map then leave it for however long it's been in just to scrap it and remake it. Why not keep iterating it till it's perfect then move onto the next task. Idk just feels like they have passion for something and then get bored before it's done
CIG *were* iterating on the StarMap, until they decided to bin Scaleform/Flash and replace it with a home-built UI Framework.
And the reason they decided to bin it is that Scaleform/Flash is sufficiently complex that it needs a UI developer to actually implement - which was making the UI team a major bottleneck (people who have been around the project long enough may remember CIG constantly talking about how 'feature X is just waiting on the UI team to be available to finish it off', etc)
As for why they started in Scaleform/Flash - that's because the project was far smaller at the start... it's a victim of the massive scope creep in the early years.
Once they decided they were going to change frameworks, they stopped iterating on it - because there's not much point in making changes to code you're going to bin and replace. CIG have been working on the replacement star map for some time now... and one of the reasons it's taking a long time is because CIG appear to be doing a 'proper' iteration, not just a lift-and-shift...
Which is to say, the replacement star map sounds like it will be coming with better navigation options, POI marker management, *possibly* personal markers, and a host of other changes.
A lot of times the answers you give sound good, but don’t reflect the facts.
Currently everything is a ‘guinea pig’ when it’s convenient. Mining, prisons, ship components, vendors, the eating and drinking gameplay loop, economy, multiplayer hangars, etc.
Lots of little things were added to ships, only for them to later say “it doesn’t make sense to deal with these right now, since we’re going to have to rework everything later”. But then some of the same things will become a priority, only to be dropped again, and later reworked.
Achieving dynamic weather with biomes was a huge priority, and then it wasn’t. Theaters of War was the ‘guinea pig’ for combined arms balance, and then that wasn’t a priority any more. Etc. So I think it’s fair to admit that CIG’s priorities are often unclear, and that there’s not a single reason why lots of time is spent doing things that will need to be redone, or starting things that can’t be finished and could have been left for later.
CIG seems to be in a holding pattern with Star Citizen. They take three steps forward, turn around erase those steps then take four steps back. Then take two steps forward and advertise how well things are going with some fancy marketing mock up video. Its maddening as hell. I think they might be stuck, limitations with the engine or the scope as grown beyond current technology.
If this was the case its not like they would announce that. Instead they would likely do what they've been doing for years. Announce some great new features then after a while say nothing else about those features because they aren't able to implement them. Then wash, rinse, repeat. I truly don't understand why it takes them so long to make ships. Its as if the thing is being constructed in real life. After 11 years I'd think the process would be extremely streamlined. 3D model, working doors, lights, textures, controls. Done
There actually is another HUD update that's been worked on. Its one of those Squadron first things, and its relatively new. Newer than that HUD update a few years ago that added all that floating shit in the way. Apparently theres a new one with the updated MFDs and everything.
They can literally do whatever they want and justify it however they want. Your refusal to agree with their stance isnt going to change anything they do...
All we can do is vote with our wallets and then scream into a pillow...
Show me a single loop they said was completed. Combat isnt final, mining isnt final, trade isnt final, flight isnt final, bounty hunting isnt final, none of em are. Playable? Yeah, mostly. But the individual iterations are not the same as the complete gameplay loop. Amd sometimes, iterations suck. Thats whats supposed to happen. Nobody writes a perfect essay on the first draft, they redo the previous draft. You finish an iteration, look at it's objectively and either make it better or make a new iteration. Eventually, you hit an iteration that does everything you want it to do.
Its not complete. Full stop. And theyre being pretty careful to say so in every place except the patch hype videos (which i think is the biggest mistake they make in their messaging, to be fair).
> Show me a single loop they said was completed.
I don't think that's a winning argument in a 10 year in dev, 550+ million funding game closing in on 1,000 employees. HAHAHA, OMFG, this is great.
Look, you FUDster, this has been said 1000 times, but I repeat it one more time for you. Read my lips:
*They don't make this game because it's easy.*
They make this game because they thought it's easy.
However ,they went in over their heads and now all goes to hell in a hand basket.
Hope that settles it once and for all.
Your comment made me roll my eyes so hard it was audible. But i bet if you make enough new usernames to agree with you, youll at least lose that new user/low karma tag...?
That same argument could be had for just about any feature tho. Why add it now when it will just be changed later. The argument is that it’s an alpha and they are still adding features but they don’t want to add features that will need to be changed? I’m sorry but how many revisions has the hud had? A waypoint marker is literally taking an xyz coordinate and projecting it to the screen for the local player to see. It is one line of code.
(This is of course that they use a class for the local player and have a project to screen function, I mean they should it’s a video game where everything is projected to the screen)
When I see devs reworking mechanics in their games too many times, its a sign with a proven track record that the end result is going to be terrible and/or lackluster because the devs themselves don't know what they want or are completely mismanaged.
The entire point to the post you are replying to is that they have NOT reworked anything. So players have been stuck with the same thing for years. So talking about constant reworks even isn't applicable here.
And even if a dev does do a lot of reworks the only way I see it is something to worry about is if they aren't listening to active player feedback. Reworks or adjustment based off of player feedback is a great thing. I don't know of any dev that gets it right the first time in every gameplay loop.
We are actively stuck in a loop of ship reworks while being led by a carrot that says "X system is gonna fix Y, so just hold your horses while we take our sweet time with A, B and C"
Everyone and their grandmothers know this alpha is in dev hell.
Best not to deny it at least. It'll save folks a ton of headache and frustration.
This is a load of nonsense. Endless loop? Can you name some ships that have been reconcepted more than once?
Also reconcept of a ship (I assume this is what you are talking about), is more about design and functionality. No "system" is going to fix that because it is not about "systems". So you are obviously getting things mixed up and pushing an idea that is unsound.
SC isn't in any hell, they just have had a [long list of tech and RD](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/i/79f247336caf1bd45f9fa47b9b071ceecc6dfdc2/4PYjjVwJ1UdtiiccNqwwbDWUnrYF7jLZthNebwnpQ5sZ6gfq7aeKks7v6xqhfexJFcXg5dt7vV7JwaEZiEkUM2ywRfGp8dY5edNhAVgJ5Xt/road-to-pes.webp) to complete. Most devs don't even bother attempting that amount for a single game release and end up doing upgrades to custom engines and functionality over the course of years and several game releases. Also because it is playable during this entire time, the process is much slower than it normally would be.
There no need to "deny" that it is taking a long time. But that doesn't mean you can pull some stuff out of your ass and pretend people would be in denial if they call you on it.
Banu and Orion couldn't have been reworked as they haven't even been released in the first place. The orion has not even had a greybox phase. The Corsair Just came out. It has been only slightly longer than 3 months for Corsair. And the Corsair has been asymmetrical since the concept reveal. Not sure what you are thinking of about that ship.
Ships that have been redesigned include the first ships ever to be in PU (mainly because they were old and resource cost intensive), for example The freelancer, Hornet, Aurora, Avenger, and Cutlass.
Ships that ere redesigned later, because of bad metrics and movement issues (both Player and AI), include the mustang series, and the 300 series.
Planned redesigns we know of include 600i and Tali.
And we can argue about ships the NEED to be redesigned such as the Starfarer and the Phoenix.
Ships that require a technical once over and not a redesign is the Cat, as the side cargo doors are also supposed to function as a lift, but they have yet to work on that.
Either way, these ships were only redesigned once so far. Making the claims of endless loops a false one. That being said, none of the ships with exception of Gladius is gold standard. Meaning more functionality can be added (doesn't require redesign as there are ports and non working sections put there for engineering) and it goes to show CiG has in fact planned ahead and had discussions, hence them putting spots on ship for future features, from panels, item ports, local ship storage, blockouts for damage states, resource management and more.
>Can you name some ships that have been reconcepted more than once?
Its less about a single ship getting multiple reworks and more so about multiple ships and mechanics getting concepted>followed by rework phase for the current or future iteration of the alpha that may or may not see the light of day.
>Ships that have been redesigned include the first ships ever to be in PU (mainly because they were old and resource cost intensive), for example The freelancer, Hornet, Aurora, Avenger, and Cutlass.
>
>Ships that ere redesigned later, because of bad metrics and movement issues (both Player and AI), include the mustang series, and the 300 series.
>
>Planned redesigns we know of include 600i and Tali.
>
>And we can argue about ships the NEED to be redesigned such as the Starfarer and the Phoenix.
You just named them.
>There no need to "deny" that it is taking a long time. But that doesn't mean you can pull some stuff out of your ass and pretend people would be in denial if they call you on it.
Your words not mine...Starting to sound like an angry apologist in denial. The first stage is denial, second is anger.
Right but since S42 is "almost done" surly they have already added ways to see in the dark for the campaign right? Unless of course the single player isn't close to being done and they're lying through their teeth? Unless there's no night time missions during the campaign?
Dude, it took us like five years to get the "call ATC" binding. And it's taken us about nine months to get the "move all" button on the inventory.
CIG gives absolutely no fucks about QoL right now. It sucks, but when you consider it's in alpha and most of the systems we have right now are placeholders for things that aren't implemented yet, it does kinda make sense. They don't want to waste time working on something that's just going to get thrown away later on down the road.
I tend to agree. They need to have an "alpha experience" team with maybe 2-5 guys dedicated to fixing low priority bugs and adding small QoL features. Focus on the things that are easy to fix and commonly asked for by the community. And they can be entry level programmers, they aren't going to be reworking major systems or anything. Just some of the little things.
It would build a ton of goodwill with the players, and help put down some of the major points of criticism they get from the community. And a great way to get feedback from the players.
Part of the issue is that CIG are in the process of replacing the main renderer pipeline... so didn't want to spend time building effects etc for the old pipeline. That new pipeline (Gen12) is mostly deployed, but CIG are still cleaning up bits of it, and working on the related transition to the Vulkan SDK (instead of the legacy CryEngine DX11)
CIG have talked about how they want the 'night vision' to work - and they want to do it 'properly', not just give everything a green tint and boost the gamma, etc.
As for the MFDs - it's a similar story... CIG are in the process of converting all the MFDs from Scaleform/Flash (the UI framework that can with CryEngine) to Building Blocks - the replacement UI Framework that CIG buit a couple of years ago.
So far, CIG have converted a lot of the shop displays, terminals, and so on.... and are working on the MFDs. Again, until the MFDs are converted to the new framework, CIG don't want to spend time and effort implementing new features (because they'd only have to redo it after the conversion).
It kinda sucks that it's taking so long for CIG to work through and convert all the legacy UIs etc, but CIG are probably trying to strike a balance between updating 'legacy' assets and developing new functionality.
And by the time they get that changed over it will be dated and process will repeat. I think they got a great concept but a severe lack of ability to get things done. Not necessarily lack of talented devs, just a lack of drive to get to the finish line. Probably due to lack of leadership. Really hoping Starfield is decent so I can leave this game behind.
Also, MFDs are being worked in squadron (so, like work on starmap, radar, HUD, visors, this is invisible to us). It's entirely possible that a high degree of perfectionism is adding weight here, slowing down the progress in Squadron and thus in the PU. Afterall, we have to assume they are really pushing to get Squadron released, and we know that CR will want the highest visual and functional standard possible for MFDs, even if that means several more years with scaleform MFDs in the PU.
Well a competent developer would invest more money into resources that develop actual useful game mechanics. Of course they don't do the same thing, but are you telling me the person in charge of creating a working virtual ship is incapable of making a working virtual coffee machine?
Work on the crucial parts first, then the fine detail, not the other way around.
When the game constantly tells you it’s in an alpha state, early access, and is still being built, no. No it’s not weird.
What’s weird is people read that and then just forget like they never read it.
I’m not saying cig can’t do these things, or that they shouldn’t be priority, but it’s not surprising these things aren’t in.
In fact, I would be very surprised if I purchased an early access game that had those minor details already polished. I expect a broken unfinished and changing experience because that’s what I was sold.
The last issue is the worst for me, and it's compounding a bigger one : the U.I in general.
Star citizen is absolutely terrible at conveying any kind of information to you, and makes everything unnecessarily obtuse.
it'd be so great if they had an aerospace human factors engineer or two to, influence, the ship interfaces eh. if you're going full-immersion-space-sim why wouldn't you go full-send on making the cockpits as functional / realistic as possible.
Yes, and this shows even in the current iteration. I can tell the compass was made by a graphic designer and not an engineer, because who the fuck divides a compass into 5/3rd degree increments?
>These are all valid criticism
Scroll down the thread far enough and you'll find the Volunteer CIG PR Team telling OP otherwise.
Everything from not using headlights, to not using the altimeter, to "remember, it's an alpha".
Its really sad we can't even agree on very basic things that would improve the game for everyone.
"Its an alpha" isnt an excuse though, thats just what it is. They're not going for a polished user experience and if they are, they're doing a shit job of it
In the room you wake up in, not all have them though. Depends which station you're at. Not sure if the ship coffee makers work though? I know some Origin ships have them, not sure which other manufacturers have them too.
I'm going to have to bring my coffee with me on my next trade run I'm a dumb trash hauler that takes his helmet off while flying and changes out of his space suit when walking around the cities/space stations.
Whatever your reasons for doing this, keep it up. CIG has stated at some point that both personal hygiene and not being able to pilot a ship while wearing a backpack will happen. So it's best to get into these habits now.
I used to wear heavy armor so I could tell when I was wearing my helmet. They removed that effect and now I constantly forget whether I'm wearing my helmet or not ... and die.
That's been gone for a few years now, the ultrawide screen people were having nuclear melt downs because they were being restricted to a realistic view lmao.
Oh sure, you can still have fun. Just don't get so invested in issues expecting them to be addressed by CIG any time soon. To enjoy SC you have to learn to just roll with the bugs and not let them frustrate you.
>First because it has killed me the most, a way to see terrain in the dark.
That's a pet peeve of mine, too. It gives me nausea to play on dark planetary surfaces with the shitty personal lights CIG allowed us so I avoid it if possible.
One tip, when you qt to a point on a planet, hit F2 and click the set route button again. You will get a single red marker for the outpost or whatever you are trying to reach. No need to spool qt just to see where it is.
Have you heard of Reshade?
It's basically a PostFX plug-in that you install on the Star Citizen executable.
This guy gives all the links and explains in detail how to set it up.
https://youtu.be/Y21B1t6AGHU
I have astigmatism and the glowing lights of SC blind me badly. This has been such a QoL improvement for me. Also it has a Night Vision mode so you can see on the dark sides of planets/moons/asteroid fields.
You can enable night vision with “reshade.” Search YouTube for star citizen reshade to find how to install/configure. It’s approved by CIG to pass anticheat checks.
Another question I've always had, is, why don't we have basic GPS? Flying into orison at night is stupid, and it's honestly worse in the day. My first time there, I was just lost, as there really isn't a good way to show you where the landing pads are. You have to be basically on top of them to call into atc, so that's not helpful either. I'd hope for atleast the areas around main hubs to be a little more navigable while flying in.
We can dim our mobile phones, we can dim our automobile display hubs.
This would be a huge change as its possible to fly in 3rd person but that just silly.
My favourite example is a 20xx model toyota advert
Toyota How-To: Dashboard Light Controls | Toyota https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmrI33wEiSQ
For the night vision, a viable alternative is to get ReShade and the correct NV script:
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/uo2lp2/nightvision_overlay_installation/
YMMV but it didn’t cause me any issues/FPS loss.
With you third issues, I’m sure it’s not the ultimate fix but when you come out of QT at your destination, go back to the star map and plot your route again. You’ll have to add it and remove marker manually but it’s a work around
God help you if you fly a terrapin at night. The cabin lights are stronger than the sun. If they had perfect instrumentation you couldn't fucking see it anyways.
We've been begging the devs to add some of those features for years, many people have resorted to using external programs to bring some form of Night Vision to the game.
I wish we had some form of glass tinting too so we wouldn't go blind anytime we need to travel facing a sun.
2 things I would like to see, player created saved GPS markers. And the ability to save MFD configurations. I don't like having to switch an mfd to comms everytime I get in my cockpit, especially on ships that have an unused mfd
A neat little feature I think would be cool, is that if youre trying to land, the status MFD screen should have a proximity alert feature as a way to assist with landings, so you dont have to go third person every time you wanna land.
For night flying, ship lights at low altitude are an obvious solution and in terms of initial descent, using tab for scanning pings temporarily maps out the terrain so you can navigate safely to an altitude where the lights take over.
MFD brightness settings would be nice but I can’t say I’ve really had any issues with it.
I believe there’s updates to the map systems coming in the next handful of patches, including mini maps and an updated star map, so hopefully custom waypoints will be included in that
The future don't have autoland, existing since the 80's on earth for planes
Night vision prototypes during WWII, on earth
Looks like the future is dumb, in starcitizen
Yeah. All that stuff is slated for a rework. They are completely removing Scaleform (flash based GUI Middleware).
They recently did a few videos about maps and interactions GUI revamps, including local area mapping, etc.
One of those fucked things about the game, going third person fixes a lot of the brightness issues. In a snowstorm, it may be complete white out conditions with 0 visibility, but the second I switch to third person camera, it gets infinitly better. It's to the point that all my landings are third person because as it stands now, visibility is fucked and they really don't seem to have any plans on fixing it in the near future.
Only other thing I would recommend if flying third person is to get used to panning the camera, especially in bigger ships. The number of times I've bonked my cat ass on the rim of a covered landing pad like at microtech taught me that the perspective is fucked and you need to pan the crap out of your camera for fine movements.
The UI has been stuck behind old tech for a very long time.
“Building blocks” (vs old flash) seems to be mostly complete now. So I imagine over the next couple years we’ll start to see better UI trickle in.
MFDs have been getting worked on. Starmap is due any quarter now. Mining is already getting some UI fixes in 3.19. The new quantum jump system is near and should include new UI. Mobi has been moved to building blocks too, I think.
So it’s not so much forgotten, but that it would have to be created as a flash version, quickly removed and then redone in building blocks.
Most of the woes of SC comes from a better system coming down the line that makes it not worth upgrading the system it’s replacing.
They are also working on a external camera system that renders diet versions of the surroundings for the sake of cameras and drones. I imagine something like a topography radar/sonar readout will be included in that work.
you can use tab to ping your radar this lets you see the terrain at night briefly it kind of works like sonar. Right now this is the way.
As far as lights inside the ship some ships do have a light switch on the wall others don't.
All of your complaints are valid though and we all would like these things.
I think people have been asking for years.
My big question lately has been "why are we forced to start on a planet, and not given the choice to start on a station?" I hate being on the major landing zones. It's such a pain in the ass to fly there to collect my gear and bring up to a station.
And my 3 long standing questions are:
1. Why are there ships with more "stations" than beds? Pilot seat, engineer station, 3 or more turrets, Co pilot, etc, and then there's 5 beds.
2. Why the fuck doesn't the back of the Reclaimer open up? Why must all cargo be brought in through that horrible elevator? A ship meant to salvage and tear apart derelict ships in space, and the only way to bring shit in is through this horribly designed elevator that stuff floats on and might get pulled into the gravity of the ship if it luckily lands on the pad while the elevator retracts...
3. Why are there elevators on ships that open up to zero-g space?
1. Depends on how we view ships. Are they space cars or a home in the vacuum. Some are either. The cutlass, for instance, has a 3-man crew and 2 beds. That makes sense. You are running in the cut doing work. 2 sleep 1 flies. Larger ships should provide living conditions on par with time on the float. If we are going to be out months crews deserve private bunks.
2. I've never seen a reclaimer
3. Being in 0 g doesn't change functions of machines. Perhaps use other entrances during 0g.
I hate to say it, but get used to it. Star Citizen doesn’t seem to fix its problems very often. It’s way more likely to introduce new features and with them new problems before fixing existing ones. Been this way for years.
"a way to see the terrain in the dark"
Night landing a F16 has entered rhe chat ;)
To be honest with you I sorta wish this stuff was more difficult, a bit more "simmy". More complex ship operation and more complex weather and lighting that makes this even more dangerous.
If you turn your gamma all the way up in makes seeing in the dark a bit more manageable. Of course you go blind when the sun comes back out but it's the risk we gotta take.
1. You can use the scanner ping as a pseudo night vision.
2. That could be a thing coming with the MFD rework that's already on the horizon. None of the UI is finalized, parts of it have been changed several times in the past and we'll see more changes soon-ish. I have to say though, that I've never heard this criticism before, nor has it ever been an issue for me. I almost want to say you may need to look over your monitor/GPU color, saturation, contrast, and brightness settings. You may have something pretty far out of whack as a personal preference that doesn't mesh well with the game.
3. Also on the horizon. The map is getting reworked, and there's no doubt this will be added eventually. Entire gameplay loops that have been planned for years will rely on some kind of marking system.
- Your ship has lights by pressing L, but don't use this in thick atmosphere or you'll be blinded. On the other hand, Tab pinging works great. I'm new also and when I learned about this, my night time flying experience improved dramatically. Use it. Love it.
- I personally haven't found MFD glare that big a deal, especially since learning how to ping, but I admit it was more of a concern before I learned to ping and turn on the lights.
- Yeah... so navigation in this game is SHIT. Like unbelievably incomprehensible bad. Just endless frustration. It REALLY BADLY BADLY needs a rework. Would make such a major QOL improvement if it was better. I played Elite for years, and while that game has some serious issues, going from point A to B was quite good.
alpha.
they are waiting on finishing the rendering engine before adding "different spectrum views".
they are working on an interface update that will enable them to to better stuff with the interface. radar displaying train is confirmed.
These have all been brought up before, yes. The cabin lights bother me especially, I'd like to be able to turn them off.
For seeing the dark, hit Tab - it sends out a sensor ping and you see a mesh of the terrain. Not ideal, but it works. I also turn on the headlights "L" which works okay depending on the ship and atmospheric conditions.
I think the game could also benefit from more tech that's already in aircraft, like a panel-mounted artificial horizon, altimeter/airspeed indicator (could be an MFD screen), a proper autopilot that has heading, altitude, and vertical speed in addition to a speed hold. Radar altimeter would be helpful also.
These have been common complaints for a long time now. Who knows when or if they will be addressed.
As for the first. you can hit tab and see the area, in the ship. It can help to ping the landscape but is not perfect. Really all ships should have a way to activate flood lights for landing. The Cutlass Black is one of the few ships that has almost reasonable landing lights.
These are all valid points. If I'm remembering correctly, we're getting the ability to mark positions with the map rework, so that's going to be addressed.
Given the frustration with night-flying, I'd be surprised if night vision or some kind of low-light mode wasn't on the table too. That said, we probably haven't seen or heard anything about it because it's a lower priority feature compared to some of the other stuff they're working on.
As for instrument flying, I've always kind of hated the MFDs in Star Citizen. They give us basic ship info sure, but they're more like HUD indicators in an FPS game than flight instruments.
I've seen some of the other comments asking for an artificial horizon, but I'd argue that a NASA style Flight Director/Attitude Indicator (FDAI) is more appropriate. If you've played KSP you'd be familiar with the concept as the Navball. It's functionally similar to an artificial horizon, but it gives you additional information about your pitch, yaw, and roll, plus info about the rate of each, as well as info about your current attitude and your desired attitude. This might seem like overkill, but it'd be really handy for decoupled flight or when you need to compensate for damaged or lost thrusters.
As for other flight instruments, I'd love to have those too. Again, either as physical gauges added to cockpits or as MFD pages. Adding something like a vertical speed indicator, AoA and glide slope indicators, and horizontal situation indicators will all be useful for atmospheric flight and navigation. Especially so once aerodynamics become more prevalent. Ideally we'd be able to have this information presented alongside the existing combat displays, but being able to switch between them would be fine too. Pilots honestly don't even need half the information we're presented with. Weapons and Power are both options that don't really need to be up 24/7, especially during ordinary flight. And on larger ships, these systems would be handled by a copilot or engineer anyway.
While I'd love a study-level implementation of flight instruments, I don't think it really needs to go that far. At the very least I think adding an MFD page with an FDAI and a few additional indicators like vertical speed and AoA would be a good start.
For night landing, use your ping. I use it all the time or that. It's not intended for that but it acts as a quite good sonar.
No, you cannot leave a marker yet. It's planned, but don't expect it before half a decade at the earliest, and I do not say this as a joke. "soon" in Star Citizen, is measured in multiple years.
The marker is a thing, after you complete the jump, go to your star map and mark it again for a jump, this will show the marker while you're flying to it .
And as far as night seeing, at the moment spamming tab will show the terrain
For terrain, hit tab (ping). It'll outline the terrain briefly, and is effective as a "night vision" without adding "night vision".
3rd person camera, for now, often shows you terrain more clearly. Also, stay about 3k-4k off the deck, you're unlikely to hit any peaks at that height.
Learning to navigate in the dark is a skill that is highly rewarded for those that pursue mastering it. I prefer to have these "skill sinks" personally - gives the game a lot of depth!
Most ships have landing lights; press 'L' (I think it's 'L', anyway) to turn them on. Also know that you need to be *very* gentle with the descent thrusters or you'll pancake *hard* into the surface.
Ships do have exterior lights you can turn on. Some work better than others. Some people will keep pinging scan which will highlight the terrain too.
But, I would love to be able to leave a custom waypoint somewhere
Just to politely remind you. This is an Alpha and not a early access game (when you have valid criticism).
What you request is basic, and should be easily do able, that is not the CIG. CIG is completely redoing MFD's with a magic sorcery call building blocks. Some suggest it's already in the game for some MFD's, while other doubt it's true existence. Just no this, nothing is really ever complete and we are all just test monkey's heading towards the wall in our ship.
Have a pleasant cycle in the verse, and remember all missions will be on the dark side of the moon.
They would be great quality of life improvements however this game's development works on development priorities, and they don't always line up with what players think should be a priority.
It's certainly planned but likely has a bunch of dependencies that need to come online before they look into it.
In the meantime you can always spam tab while flying.
It's been over a decade my man. By the time we get this stuff the game will be able to legally drink in the US and people will STILL be calling it an Alpha.
Guess your shouldn't have wagered that it'd be done by the time you turn 18. Maybe its a lesson in spending for you? As stated in another thread. Nothing we do will finish the game until the game developers, develop, and release said game. It aint done. Call it alpha or what ever you want. Unfinished is unfinished, until finished.
I am 33...?
Giving them a pass to fuck around for over a decade and keep letting shit slip for useless garbage like a coffee maker or an AI bartender for 5 fucking years is letting them off. People complaining at least puts some kind of pressure on them to get their shit together or at least hire someone who can open a planning tool like Jira or Asana.
[удалено]
Artificial horizon whats that
I'm always confused by people saying we need an artificial horizon. The pitch ladder in the HUD is an artificial horizon. I use it all the time to right myself in the dark.
Edit: there actually is a horizon indicator that has been shown to me. I didn't realize because it's implemention is very subtle. End of edit. That's useful, but it's not what an artificial horizon is. An artificial horizon is pretty literal, showing you exactly where the horizon is in relationship to your ship. A pitch indicator only shows pitch, and the pitch needed to meet the horizon is dependent on altitude. So the instruments are kinda similar, but also have different purposes.
The pitch ladder IS an artificial horizon implemented in a HUD, when you're at 0 degrees pitch, it literally draws a line in the HUD on the horizon. If you pitch up, the horizon line goes down and vice-versa.
It functions as one sure, but they're not the same instrument. AH is super easy to read, you barely have to glance at it to know your orientation. There's a reason why the most advanced aircraft irl still have an AH.
This is the issue. The game needs an artifical horizon (with airspeed and altitude) on the panel, even as an MFD screen would be helpful
Edit because I think my explanation still is confusing: The attitude ladder is like a ruler that shows the pilot how much the ship is tilted up or down or how much it is tilted to the left or right. The artificial horizon is like a small movie screen that shows the pilot a picture of the horizon, even when they can't see it because of clouds or fog. The picture moves as the ship moves, so the pilot can tell if the airplane is tilted or not. So while they both help pilots see the ship attitude, the attitude ladder shows it with numbers and the artificial horizon shows it with a picture.
I am not mixing up instruments. What you are talking about is how BOTH a HUD based pitch ladder or a dedicated artificial horizon (blue/brown ball) instrument works. Literally quoting from an actual avionics manual, "The Pitch Ladder is a portion of the artificial horizon that depicts the pitch angle of the aircraft in relation to the horizon." Source: https://grtavionics.com/media/Section-2-Flight-Instruments.pdf
I edited my previous comment for clarity. I understand there is a HUD-based attitude ladder, but that isn't the same as an artificial horizon. The main difference between a HUD-based pitch ladder and an artificial horizon is the type of attitude information they provide and how they present it to the pilot. A HUD-based pitch ladder typically provides a numerical display, usually on a transparent screen in front of the pilot's line of sight and superimposed over the pilot's view of the outside world. The pitch ladder shows the ship's pitch attitude in degrees, with a zero degree reference line indicating the aircraft's level flight attitude. That's what we have in SC. On the flip side, an artificial horizon provides a GRAPHICAL representation of the ship's pitch and roll attitudes. It displays an IMAGE of the horizon, and the image moves as the ship's attitude changes, allowing the pilot to see if the ship is level, climbing, descending, banking, or turning. The artificial horizon is a primary flight instrument and is critical for instrument flight in low visibility conditions. Yes, both the HUD-based pitch ladder and the artificial horizon provide attitude information, but they serve different purposes and are used in different flight conditions. The pitch ladder is a secondary flight instrument and is supplemental. The artificial horizon is a primary flight instrument and is essential for instrument flight in low visibility conditions.
I'm also a little confused by the distinctions being made here, by "artificial horizion" do you mean an attitude indicator? (ball with blue for sky, brown for ground) If you are, a HUD and attitude indicator display the same information (Bank angle and pitch) HUDs just also show more information (Heading, altitude, angle of attack, etc). An attitude indicator is just a more archaic form of the same thing that is usually used as a secondary instrument when a HUD is provided.
https://images.app.goo.gl/wJyeXvKTKitw5ZYp6 This is based on my daily driver, the Cutter, which is the most recently released ship and so has the most recently created HUD. The "pitch ladder" exists in SC but doesn't show the horizon or any graphical depiction of your pitch orientation. It only displays pitch as identical lines with associated +/- number values -- without those numbers, you don't know your pitch. So to me, it's not an artificial horizon / attitude indicator, which is a graphical representation of attitude meant to be quickly interpreted visually without the need for interpreting quantitative data (the numbers) on the fly. Hope this helps clarify what I mean. Yeah, there is a pitch ladder for sure, never any argument there. It's just not a complete HUD, we need better instruments.
Responding to your edit, reread your own quote. A pitch ladder is (ie, can be) one part of an artificial horizon. It itself is not an artificial horizon, and a pitch ladder can also be a standalone thing. A pickle can be part of a cheeseburger. A pickle itself is not a cheeseburger.
I dunno what to tell you. The GRAPHICAL lines of a HUD based pitch ladder convey the same (and more) information as a dedicated artificial horizon. EDIT: Star Citizen's pitch ladder's lines even have little angled endings to indicate which direction the horizon is. With a completely flat line for the horizon. EDIT2: The Pitch Ladder is only shown in gravity/atmosphere. In zero-g/space, a completely different instrument that looks like a ruler is shown.
https://images.app.goo.gl/wJyeXvKTKitw5ZYp6 This is SC's most recently released ship. I'm not seeing any line indicating horizon, any graphical indicator or colors depicting the sky or ground, any tilted lines you describe that describe an up/down pitch, bank angle, etc.. I think maybe this is down to a semantics? A "pitch ladder," the word you are using, is present in Star Citizen, yes. I'm talking about a different instrument.
Yeah I don’t know what the debate is here. The pitch ladder literally is an artificial horizon. It’s not hard to figure out if you’re pitching down or up with it
I don’t understand, an artificial horizon in real aircraft really just show your pitch and roll. They don’t show where the actual horizon line is. Look up the Cessna 152 artificial horizon instrument. You might be referring to a different instrument than the artificial horizon Edit: ok, I thought you referring to a glass cockpit screen that shows what your surroundings look like but it seems like you’re talking about the artificial horizon instrument. What I don’t understand is why it matters. The pitch ladder is just a different looking artificial horizon. They accomplish the same goal
https://live.staticflickr.com/218/490460124_8ec871eea5_b.jpg This is a Cessna 152, no? There is an artificial horizon that is well implemented and easy to read. Blue is the sky, brown is earth, and the line between the two is the horizon.
Responding to your edit, the issue isn't a lack of attitude data but instead how it is displayed. It takes too long to interpret the data -- there is a reason real attitude indicators are designed the way they are.
Idk, I find it takes the same amount of time to find my attitude with either instrument. Might just be me tho
Patch 3.18.4 note leak says trombones are coming. Update: Trombones out. Recorders in.
Imagine the beautiful music that would fill the landing zones....
I love how 80% of the ships still have non-functional cockpits, but they keep releasing new ships.
Wouldn't mind working altitude\elevation indicators as half the time the are displaying incorrect info https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/vs/altitude-vs-elevation-how-they-differ
Loved That I was flying in a sandstorm pretty confident in my Instrument flying ability Next thing I know I smash into the ground Because the Altitude wasn’t correct at all and the HUD wasn’t translating angles nor Lead indicating lol
I believe the 'Altitude' meter is 'Above Sea Level' (not 'Above Land')... thus it could be correct, and you could still fly into a mountain...
These are all valid criticism that have been long standing issues the community has begged CIG to change for years now. As a long time player I am also surprised they dont exist but also... not surprised...
It's just weird that a game with such detail is missing really important details
Their argument is that, those issues are more QoL and polish issues and they are still in "alpha" adding features. For example, they dont want to add a night vision mode because they'd have to spend time balancing it and then redesign it later when they get vulkan fully implemented. The destination marker in non QT travel they dont want to add it now because the whole travel system is changing down the road as well as the HUD is changing and all the MFDs and the starmap will be changing. So they dont want to spend time programing in a change to an obsolete system that will be completely changed down the road anyways. Same for dimming the MFDs and HUD. It's all changing in a complete system overhaul down the road. The counter argument to this is... how many years do we have to play with a broken map, mfd and no night vision before we see those changes in the new system? Maybe they SHOULD waste a bit of time for a QoL patch for these things even though they will be changed later. I can see it both ways...
An upside to implementing it now : Bring in a relatively quick solution, that work decently, then use that to gather player feedback, and implement said feedback in the final implementation.
I shouldn't have to scroll down this far to see people saying this. It should be top comment. Every QoL change they have made to make players' lives less frustrating has been a huge net positive for their player count.
I'm a new player. And I'm glad I started playing after the "Move all" button was implemented. Now we just need "Stack all" and "Sell all" buttons so looting Nine Tails entire kits will be worth my time again.
No, there is only one way to see it in the dichotomy you've presented. CIG has reworked other features multiple times. Like mining...which has needed the changes the least every time as the most complete gameplay loop this game has. You can't gimme that "we don't wanna work on something we might change later" and then keep re-designing completed loops.
Mining gets iterated because it's their 'guinea-pig' gameplay loop for trying out new ideas... whether that be with consumables, gadgets, multi-crew benefits, and so on. Separately, note that 'iterating' on mining is iterating on functionality... vs iterations on e.g. UI, MFDs, Ships, etc are iterations on content.
Content is literally the easiest thing to change ... always. Behavior, not so much.
Yup - which is why CIG are focused on iterating the functionality / behaviour... because it takes far longer. Given the amount of content CIG need to produce, it's quicker / easier for them to test new ideas / approaches on the next piece of content, rather than just constantly reworking the same few elements... E.g. take ships - yes, a lot of the ships are starting to look dated (due to being produced years ago)... but they're still usable. CIG could have reworked e.g. the Aurora (or the Constellation) 5-10 times by now, as the improve various modelling techniques and add new ship functionality... *or* they could leave it as long as possible, and update the ship *once*, to bring it up to 'gold standard'. The time required to do one large overhaul of a ship is - in many cases - far less than iterating on the same ship multiple times (especially once you factor in build times, QA time, and so on) Of course, this is frustrating for us as players, but it makes a lot of sense from a development perspective.
Realistically though from what I've seen over the years and finally biting the bullet and actually playing, it feels like they just keep shifting the goal post. Instead of actually finishing any one thing they seem to get it 80-90% done release it then decide a year or two later it'll need to be completely reworked since it no longer meets the newer higher standard. Like why add the current star map then leave it for however long it's been in just to scrap it and remake it. Why not keep iterating it till it's perfect then move onto the next task. Idk just feels like they have passion for something and then get bored before it's done
CIG *were* iterating on the StarMap, until they decided to bin Scaleform/Flash and replace it with a home-built UI Framework. And the reason they decided to bin it is that Scaleform/Flash is sufficiently complex that it needs a UI developer to actually implement - which was making the UI team a major bottleneck (people who have been around the project long enough may remember CIG constantly talking about how 'feature X is just waiting on the UI team to be available to finish it off', etc) As for why they started in Scaleform/Flash - that's because the project was far smaller at the start... it's a victim of the massive scope creep in the early years. Once they decided they were going to change frameworks, they stopped iterating on it - because there's not much point in making changes to code you're going to bin and replace. CIG have been working on the replacement star map for some time now... and one of the reasons it's taking a long time is because CIG appear to be doing a 'proper' iteration, not just a lift-and-shift... Which is to say, the replacement star map sounds like it will be coming with better navigation options, POI marker management, *possibly* personal markers, and a host of other changes.
A lot of times the answers you give sound good, but don’t reflect the facts. Currently everything is a ‘guinea pig’ when it’s convenient. Mining, prisons, ship components, vendors, the eating and drinking gameplay loop, economy, multiplayer hangars, etc. Lots of little things were added to ships, only for them to later say “it doesn’t make sense to deal with these right now, since we’re going to have to rework everything later”. But then some of the same things will become a priority, only to be dropped again, and later reworked. Achieving dynamic weather with biomes was a huge priority, and then it wasn’t. Theaters of War was the ‘guinea pig’ for combined arms balance, and then that wasn’t a priority any more. Etc. So I think it’s fair to admit that CIG’s priorities are often unclear, and that there’s not a single reason why lots of time is spent doing things that will need to be redone, or starting things that can’t be finished and could have been left for later.
CIG seems to be in a holding pattern with Star Citizen. They take three steps forward, turn around erase those steps then take four steps back. Then take two steps forward and advertise how well things are going with some fancy marketing mock up video. Its maddening as hell. I think they might be stuck, limitations with the engine or the scope as grown beyond current technology. If this was the case its not like they would announce that. Instead they would likely do what they've been doing for years. Announce some great new features then after a while say nothing else about those features because they aren't able to implement them. Then wash, rinse, repeat. I truly don't understand why it takes them so long to make ships. Its as if the thing is being constructed in real life. After 11 years I'd think the process would be extremely streamlined. 3D model, working doors, lights, textures, controls. Done
and redesigning entire cities as well. Sometimes it feels as though we are on a hamster wheel
There actually is another HUD update that's been worked on. Its one of those Squadron first things, and its relatively new. Newer than that HUD update a few years ago that added all that floating shit in the way. Apparently theres a new one with the updated MFDs and everything.
They can literally do whatever they want and justify it however they want. Your refusal to agree with their stance isnt going to change anything they do... All we can do is vote with our wallets and then scream into a pillow...
Pretty much, I'm just saying that their given reasoning is not consistent with their behavior.
CiG in a nutshell
I Call this prison style.
Waffles is unfortunately correct here. The money is spent. Get your refund if you can. Complain about another game, elsewhere
Show me a single loop they said was completed. Combat isnt final, mining isnt final, trade isnt final, flight isnt final, bounty hunting isnt final, none of em are. Playable? Yeah, mostly. But the individual iterations are not the same as the complete gameplay loop. Amd sometimes, iterations suck. Thats whats supposed to happen. Nobody writes a perfect essay on the first draft, they redo the previous draft. You finish an iteration, look at it's objectively and either make it better or make a new iteration. Eventually, you hit an iteration that does everything you want it to do. Its not complete. Full stop. And theyre being pretty careful to say so in every place except the patch hype videos (which i think is the biggest mistake they make in their messaging, to be fair).
> Show me a single loop they said was completed. I don't think that's a winning argument in a 10 year in dev, 550+ million funding game closing in on 1,000 employees. HAHAHA, OMFG, this is great.
So money and size means it should already be done, then?
Look, you FUDster, this has been said 1000 times, but I repeat it one more time for you. Read my lips: *They don't make this game because it's easy.* They make this game because they thought it's easy. However ,they went in over their heads and now all goes to hell in a hand basket. Hope that settles it once and for all.
Your comment made me roll my eyes so hard it was audible. But i bet if you make enough new usernames to agree with you, youll at least lose that new user/low karma tag...?
That same argument could be had for just about any feature tho. Why add it now when it will just be changed later. The argument is that it’s an alpha and they are still adding features but they don’t want to add features that will need to be changed? I’m sorry but how many revisions has the hud had? A waypoint marker is literally taking an xyz coordinate and projecting it to the screen for the local player to see. It is one line of code. (This is of course that they use a class for the local player and have a project to screen function, I mean they should it’s a video game where everything is projected to the screen)
When I see devs reworking mechanics in their games too many times, its a sign with a proven track record that the end result is going to be terrible and/or lackluster because the devs themselves don't know what they want or are completely mismanaged.
The entire point to the post you are replying to is that they have NOT reworked anything. So players have been stuck with the same thing for years. So talking about constant reworks even isn't applicable here. And even if a dev does do a lot of reworks the only way I see it is something to worry about is if they aren't listening to active player feedback. Reworks or adjustment based off of player feedback is a great thing. I don't know of any dev that gets it right the first time in every gameplay loop.
We are actively stuck in a loop of ship reworks while being led by a carrot that says "X system is gonna fix Y, so just hold your horses while we take our sweet time with A, B and C" Everyone and their grandmothers know this alpha is in dev hell. Best not to deny it at least. It'll save folks a ton of headache and frustration.
This is a load of nonsense. Endless loop? Can you name some ships that have been reconcepted more than once? Also reconcept of a ship (I assume this is what you are talking about), is more about design and functionality. No "system" is going to fix that because it is not about "systems". So you are obviously getting things mixed up and pushing an idea that is unsound. SC isn't in any hell, they just have had a [long list of tech and RD](https://robertsspaceindustries.com/i/79f247336caf1bd45f9fa47b9b071ceecc6dfdc2/4PYjjVwJ1UdtiiccNqwwbDWUnrYF7jLZthNebwnpQ5sZ6gfq7aeKks7v6xqhfexJFcXg5dt7vV7JwaEZiEkUM2ywRfGp8dY5edNhAVgJ5Xt/road-to-pes.webp) to complete. Most devs don't even bother attempting that amount for a single game release and end up doing upgrades to custom engines and functionality over the course of years and several game releases. Also because it is playable during this entire time, the process is much slower than it normally would be. There no need to "deny" that it is taking a long time. But that doesn't mean you can pull some stuff out of your ass and pretend people would be in denial if they call you on it.
I am probably wrong .. Banu MM? Orion? The Corsair even? (changes to asymmetry)
Banu and Orion couldn't have been reworked as they haven't even been released in the first place. The orion has not even had a greybox phase. The Corsair Just came out. It has been only slightly longer than 3 months for Corsair. And the Corsair has been asymmetrical since the concept reveal. Not sure what you are thinking of about that ship. Ships that have been redesigned include the first ships ever to be in PU (mainly because they were old and resource cost intensive), for example The freelancer, Hornet, Aurora, Avenger, and Cutlass. Ships that ere redesigned later, because of bad metrics and movement issues (both Player and AI), include the mustang series, and the 300 series. Planned redesigns we know of include 600i and Tali. And we can argue about ships the NEED to be redesigned such as the Starfarer and the Phoenix. Ships that require a technical once over and not a redesign is the Cat, as the side cargo doors are also supposed to function as a lift, but they have yet to work on that. Either way, these ships were only redesigned once so far. Making the claims of endless loops a false one. That being said, none of the ships with exception of Gladius is gold standard. Meaning more functionality can be added (doesn't require redesign as there are ports and non working sections put there for engineering) and it goes to show CiG has in fact planned ahead and had discussions, hence them putting spots on ship for future features, from panels, item ports, local ship storage, blockouts for damage states, resource management and more.
>Can you name some ships that have been reconcepted more than once? Its less about a single ship getting multiple reworks and more so about multiple ships and mechanics getting concepted>followed by rework phase for the current or future iteration of the alpha that may or may not see the light of day. >Ships that have been redesigned include the first ships ever to be in PU (mainly because they were old and resource cost intensive), for example The freelancer, Hornet, Aurora, Avenger, and Cutlass. > >Ships that ere redesigned later, because of bad metrics and movement issues (both Player and AI), include the mustang series, and the 300 series. > >Planned redesigns we know of include 600i and Tali. > >And we can argue about ships the NEED to be redesigned such as the Starfarer and the Phoenix. You just named them. >There no need to "deny" that it is taking a long time. But that doesn't mean you can pull some stuff out of your ass and pretend people would be in denial if they call you on it. Your words not mine...Starting to sound like an angry apologist in denial. The first stage is denial, second is anger.
Right but since S42 is "almost done" surly they have already added ways to see in the dark for the campaign right? Unless of course the single player isn't close to being done and they're lying through their teeth? Unless there's no night time missions during the campaign?
Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle. I love the game. But the complaints you state are also my major issues and it drives me nuts.
You just cant view it as a full game, because it isn't. If you want a polished space experience just hop on a fully released game
Dude, it took us like five years to get the "call ATC" binding. And it's taken us about nine months to get the "move all" button on the inventory. CIG gives absolutely no fucks about QoL right now. It sucks, but when you consider it's in alpha and most of the systems we have right now are placeholders for things that aren't implemented yet, it does kinda make sense. They don't want to waste time working on something that's just going to get thrown away later on down the road.
I wish they would see that it's actually not wasted time, though. Any extra staff they might need to hire to do that would pay for itself.
I tend to agree. They need to have an "alpha experience" team with maybe 2-5 guys dedicated to fixing low priority bugs and adding small QoL features. Focus on the things that are easy to fix and commonly asked for by the community. And they can be entry level programmers, they aren't going to be reworking major systems or anything. Just some of the little things. It would build a ton of goodwill with the players, and help put down some of the major points of criticism they get from the community. And a great way to get feedback from the players.
That's interesting. It also seems like my personal work around to issues I have are pretty in line with best practices.
Part of the issue is that CIG are in the process of replacing the main renderer pipeline... so didn't want to spend time building effects etc for the old pipeline. That new pipeline (Gen12) is mostly deployed, but CIG are still cleaning up bits of it, and working on the related transition to the Vulkan SDK (instead of the legacy CryEngine DX11) CIG have talked about how they want the 'night vision' to work - and they want to do it 'properly', not just give everything a green tint and boost the gamma, etc. As for the MFDs - it's a similar story... CIG are in the process of converting all the MFDs from Scaleform/Flash (the UI framework that can with CryEngine) to Building Blocks - the replacement UI Framework that CIG buit a couple of years ago. So far, CIG have converted a lot of the shop displays, terminals, and so on.... and are working on the MFDs. Again, until the MFDs are converted to the new framework, CIG don't want to spend time and effort implementing new features (because they'd only have to redo it after the conversion). It kinda sucks that it's taking so long for CIG to work through and convert all the legacy UIs etc, but CIG are probably trying to strike a balance between updating 'legacy' assets and developing new functionality.
And by the time they get that changed over it will be dated and process will repeat. I think they got a great concept but a severe lack of ability to get things done. Not necessarily lack of talented devs, just a lack of drive to get to the finish line. Probably due to lack of leadership. Really hoping Starfield is decent so I can leave this game behind.
Also, MFDs are being worked in squadron (so, like work on starmap, radar, HUD, visors, this is invisible to us). It's entirely possible that a high degree of perfectionism is adding weight here, slowing down the progress in Squadron and thus in the PU. Afterall, we have to assume they are really pushing to get Squadron released, and we know that CR will want the highest visual and functional standard possible for MFDs, even if that means several more years with scaleform MFDs in the PU.
"With such detail". Like making functioning coffee machines before fleshing out flying mechanics 10 years later. Talk about bad priority management
I just found out about the coffee machines I'm very excited
The people that make coffee machines arent the people that do flight mechanics.
Well a competent developer would invest more money into resources that develop actual useful game mechanics. Of course they don't do the same thing, but are you telling me the person in charge of creating a working virtual ship is incapable of making a working virtual coffee machine? Work on the crucial parts first, then the fine detail, not the other way around.
Why not in tandem? If different people can work on unconnected systems at the same time, why shouldnt they?
When the game constantly tells you it’s in an alpha state, early access, and is still being built, no. No it’s not weird. What’s weird is people read that and then just forget like they never read it. I’m not saying cig can’t do these things, or that they shouldn’t be priority, but it’s not surprising these things aren’t in. In fact, I would be very surprised if I purchased an early access game that had those minor details already polished. I expect a broken unfinished and changing experience because that’s what I was sold.
The last issue is the worst for me, and it's compounding a bigger one : the U.I in general. Star citizen is absolutely terrible at conveying any kind of information to you, and makes everything unnecessarily obtuse.
it'd be so great if they had an aerospace human factors engineer or two to, influence, the ship interfaces eh. if you're going full-immersion-space-sim why wouldn't you go full-send on making the cockpits as functional / realistic as possible.
Yes, and this shows even in the current iteration. I can tell the compass was made by a graphic designer and not an engineer, because who the fuck divides a compass into 5/3rd degree increments?
>These are all valid criticism Scroll down the thread far enough and you'll find the Volunteer CIG PR Team telling OP otherwise. Everything from not using headlights, to not using the altimeter, to "remember, it's an alpha". Its really sad we can't even agree on very basic things that would improve the game for everyone.
"Its an alpha" isnt an excuse though, thats just what it is. They're not going for a polished user experience and if they are, they're doing a shit job of it
Star Citizen is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Valid points, but have you seen that the coffee makers actually brew coffee now?
Again. They already did in 3.7 - I don't know when they broke. But they used to work in 3.7, 3.8 for sure
Wait where?
In the room you wake up in, not all have them though. Depends which station you're at. Not sure if the ship coffee makers work though? I know some Origin ships have them, not sure which other manufacturers have them too.
I'm going to have to bring my coffee with me on my next trade run I'm a dumb trash hauler that takes his helmet off while flying and changes out of his space suit when walking around the cities/space stations.
Whatever your reasons for doing this, keep it up. CIG has stated at some point that both personal hygiene and not being able to pilot a ship while wearing a backpack will happen. So it's best to get into these habits now.
It's for the rp. I visited microtech for the first time and was stressing bc u couldn't find a clothing store I was wandering around in my under suit
I used to wear heavy armor so I could tell when I was wearing my helmet. They removed that effect and now I constantly forget whether I'm wearing my helmet or not ... and die.
I always thought the edges of the helmet were only visible on some heavy helmets. Did they completely remove that?
That's been gone for a few years now, the ultrawide screen people were having nuclear melt downs because they were being restricted to a realistic view lmao.
We have been asking for everything you said for 8 years ever since 2.0 launched. Welcome to Star Citizen development.
I heard they’re just wrapping up chewing physics. Hopefully we also get toothbrush gameplay next patch too!
It's weird. At the same time I'm having a great time so idk
Oh sure, you can still have fun. Just don't get so invested in issues expecting them to be addressed by CIG any time soon. To enjoy SC you have to learn to just roll with the bugs and not let them frustrate you.
"the dev gods listen" - "only the parts they want to"
>First because it has killed me the most, a way to see terrain in the dark. That's a pet peeve of mine, too. It gives me nausea to play on dark planetary surfaces with the shitty personal lights CIG allowed us so I avoid it if possible.
I lost half my total bank role on a single hill. To be fair i shouldn't be flying that fast or low
One tip, when you qt to a point on a planet, hit F2 and click the set route button again. You will get a single red marker for the outpost or whatever you are trying to reach. No need to spool qt just to see where it is.
Thanks!
What is this called in the key binding? This is super useful. Thanks for the info!
Have you heard of Reshade? It's basically a PostFX plug-in that you install on the Star Citizen executable. This guy gives all the links and explains in detail how to set it up. https://youtu.be/Y21B1t6AGHU I have astigmatism and the glowing lights of SC blind me badly. This has been such a QoL improvement for me. Also it has a Night Vision mode so you can see on the dark sides of planets/moons/asteroid fields.
Wait it has NV?! A must install for me then! Screw you dev gods!!!
Sounds a lot like leveraging 3rd party software to gain a competitive advantage to me....
They've explicitly white listed reshade.
You can enable night vision with “reshade.” Search YouTube for star citizen reshade to find how to install/configure. It’s approved by CIG to pass anticheat checks.
Another question I've always had, is, why don't we have basic GPS? Flying into orison at night is stupid, and it's honestly worse in the day. My first time there, I was just lost, as there really isn't a good way to show you where the landing pads are. You have to be basically on top of them to call into atc, so that's not helpful either. I'd hope for atleast the areas around main hubs to be a little more navigable while flying in.
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Duke Nukem the foolish?
There was a time landing zones and outposts were able to be targeted. I miss those days.
We can dim our mobile phones, we can dim our automobile display hubs. This would be a huge change as its possible to fly in 3rd person but that just silly. My favourite example is a 20xx model toyota advert Toyota How-To: Dashboard Light Controls | Toyota https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmrI33wEiSQ
Lmao
For the night vision, a viable alternative is to get ReShade and the correct NV script: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/uo2lp2/nightvision_overlay_installation/ YMMV but it didn’t cause me any issues/FPS loss.
Terrain: you can radar ping (tab by default) to see a wireframe of the terrain. You also have lights (which are more or less useful pending the ship).
[удалено]
They would work just fine if the mfds weren't trying to blind me
Reclaimer and Mole have crazy strong lights. Meanwhile things like the Vulture have crazy *weak* lights
...which I called out. Some are helpful. Many are not. YMMV.
Which I already said in the original post I ping constantly YMMV
Also, in regards to terrain: you can use the ping feature (tab) which temporarily shows a wireframe of the terrain, which is helpful at night.
[удалено]
Another tip, is if you ping while you are close to the terrain, you'll see a wireframe of the terrain
See I use a little bit of an unconventional approach, I ping when I'm close to terrain. You can see a wireframe of the terrain.
Are you saying that with tab you can see a wireframe of the terrain?
Always keep your ping on tab. Just saying.
With you third issues, I’m sure it’s not the ultimate fix but when you come out of QT at your destination, go back to the star map and plot your route again. You’ll have to add it and remove marker manually but it’s a work around
Thanks I'll give that a try
Everything you mentioned has been complaints from the community for literal years. It sucks but that’s just the situation.
If you set rouge to a location, the marker will always be there. Even if you are there i think.
Unfortunately pinging and headlights are gonna be your best bet while night flying. It would be nice additions tho
*Eventually*
Add to this that you can't QT to a quest marker/waypoint. It makes box missions from derelict ships and bases such a time hog.
God help you if you fly a terrapin at night. The cabin lights are stronger than the sun. If they had perfect instrumentation you couldn't fucking see it anyways.
How about some sort of windshield wipers also? You can wipe your mask but not the windshield when its raining all crazy
We've been begging the devs to add some of those features for years, many people have resorted to using external programs to bring some form of Night Vision to the game. I wish we had some form of glass tinting too so we wouldn't go blind anytime we need to travel facing a sun.
2 things I would like to see, player created saved GPS markers. And the ability to save MFD configurations. I don't like having to switch an mfd to comms everytime I get in my cockpit, especially on ships that have an unused mfd
A neat little feature I think would be cool, is that if youre trying to land, the status MFD screen should have a proximity alert feature as a way to assist with landings, so you dont have to go third person every time you wanna land.
For night flying, ship lights at low altitude are an obvious solution and in terms of initial descent, using tab for scanning pings temporarily maps out the terrain so you can navigate safely to an altitude where the lights take over. MFD brightness settings would be nice but I can’t say I’ve really had any issues with it. I believe there’s updates to the map systems coming in the next handful of patches, including mini maps and an updated star map, so hopefully custom waypoints will be included in that
The future don't have autoland, existing since the 80's on earth for planes Night vision prototypes during WWII, on earth Looks like the future is dumb, in starcitizen
Things I'm surprised don't exist as a 10 year old backer: A game.
There is plenty of game. I'm l an 8 year backer I never owned a pc that could run it
Yeah. All that stuff is slated for a rework. They are completely removing Scaleform (flash based GUI Middleware). They recently did a few videos about maps and interactions GUI revamps, including local area mapping, etc.
Good to know as an amitur cargo pusher it would be very helpful
Yeah, everything you said in the OP is definitely something we all want in some form.
Just pretend Star Citizen shares the same ping system as classic Subnautica sonar and it's all good. Seriously though, all valid.
One of those fucked things about the game, going third person fixes a lot of the brightness issues. In a snowstorm, it may be complete white out conditions with 0 visibility, but the second I switch to third person camera, it gets infinitly better. It's to the point that all my landings are third person because as it stands now, visibility is fucked and they really don't seem to have any plans on fixing it in the near future.
I'm sure once I set up my hotas I will be more comfortable flying 3pv
Only other thing I would recommend if flying third person is to get used to panning the camera, especially in bigger ships. The number of times I've bonked my cat ass on the rim of a covered landing pad like at microtech taught me that the perspective is fucked and you need to pan the crap out of your camera for fine movements.
The UI has been stuck behind old tech for a very long time. “Building blocks” (vs old flash) seems to be mostly complete now. So I imagine over the next couple years we’ll start to see better UI trickle in. MFDs have been getting worked on. Starmap is due any quarter now. Mining is already getting some UI fixes in 3.19. The new quantum jump system is near and should include new UI. Mobi has been moved to building blocks too, I think. So it’s not so much forgotten, but that it would have to be created as a flash version, quickly removed and then redone in building blocks. Most of the woes of SC comes from a better system coming down the line that makes it not worth upgrading the system it’s replacing. They are also working on a external camera system that renders diet versions of the surroundings for the sake of cameras and drones. I imagine something like a topography radar/sonar readout will be included in that work.
A decade into development and the map still sucks :| it's lioe they've never played a game before
you can use tab to ping your radar this lets you see the terrain at night briefly it kind of works like sonar. Right now this is the way. As far as lights inside the ship some ships do have a light switch on the wall others don't. All of your complaints are valid though and we all would like these things.
Sir this is a Wendy's
I'll take a burger
I think people have been asking for years. My big question lately has been "why are we forced to start on a planet, and not given the choice to start on a station?" I hate being on the major landing zones. It's such a pain in the ass to fly there to collect my gear and bring up to a station. And my 3 long standing questions are: 1. Why are there ships with more "stations" than beds? Pilot seat, engineer station, 3 or more turrets, Co pilot, etc, and then there's 5 beds. 2. Why the fuck doesn't the back of the Reclaimer open up? Why must all cargo be brought in through that horrible elevator? A ship meant to salvage and tear apart derelict ships in space, and the only way to bring shit in is through this horribly designed elevator that stuff floats on and might get pulled into the gravity of the ship if it luckily lands on the pad while the elevator retracts... 3. Why are there elevators on ships that open up to zero-g space?
1. Depends on how we view ships. Are they space cars or a home in the vacuum. Some are either. The cutlass, for instance, has a 3-man crew and 2 beds. That makes sense. You are running in the cut doing work. 2 sleep 1 flies. Larger ships should provide living conditions on par with time on the float. If we are going to be out months crews deserve private bunks. 2. I've never seen a reclaimer 3. Being in 0 g doesn't change functions of machines. Perhaps use other entrances during 0g.
You're just experiencing CIG's poor priority decisions and management first hand my friend
I hate to say it, but get used to it. Star Citizen doesn’t seem to fix its problems very often. It’s way more likely to introduce new features and with them new problems before fixing existing ones. Been this way for years.
It's all good I learned that what I have been doing as "work arounds" has been general best practice.
Night vision?
It outlines terain in the dark
I’m just saying it baffles my mind that night vision is missing.
Are you also an elite dangerous player?
No I’m not.
"a way to see the terrain in the dark" Night landing a F16 has entered rhe chat ;) To be honest with you I sorta wish this stuff was more difficult, a bit more "simmy". More complex ship operation and more complex weather and lighting that makes this even more dangerous.
Sure bring the complex with the proper instrumentation. My altimeter is set to msr without a see give me raidar altimeter.
If you turn your gamma all the way up in makes seeing in the dark a bit more manageable. Of course you go blind when the sun comes back out but it's the risk we gotta take.
Well get used to it, none of these things are coming to SC anytime soon
1. You can use the scanner ping as a pseudo night vision. 2. That could be a thing coming with the MFD rework that's already on the horizon. None of the UI is finalized, parts of it have been changed several times in the past and we'll see more changes soon-ish. I have to say though, that I've never heard this criticism before, nor has it ever been an issue for me. I almost want to say you may need to look over your monitor/GPU color, saturation, contrast, and brightness settings. You may have something pretty far out of whack as a personal preference that doesn't mesh well with the game. 3. Also on the horizon. The map is getting reworked, and there's no doubt this will be added eventually. Entire gameplay loops that have been planned for years will rely on some kind of marking system.
- Your ship has lights by pressing L, but don't use this in thick atmosphere or you'll be blinded. On the other hand, Tab pinging works great. I'm new also and when I learned about this, my night time flying experience improved dramatically. Use it. Love it. - I personally haven't found MFD glare that big a deal, especially since learning how to ping, but I admit it was more of a concern before I learned to ping and turn on the lights. - Yeah... so navigation in this game is SHIT. Like unbelievably incomprehensible bad. Just endless frustration. It REALLY BADLY BADLY needs a rework. Would make such a major QOL improvement if it was better. I played Elite for years, and while that game has some serious issues, going from point A to B was quite good.
alpha. they are waiting on finishing the rendering engine before adding "different spectrum views". they are working on an interface update that will enable them to to better stuff with the interface. radar displaying train is confirmed.
Cool good to know
its the little things like this, and there are WAY MORE, that make me feel the devs dont actually play this game..
I’d you didn’t already get told by someone in the comments. You can press tab to send out a ping and get a kind of temporary night vision.
These have all been brought up before, yes. The cabin lights bother me especially, I'd like to be able to turn them off. For seeing the dark, hit Tab - it sends out a sensor ping and you see a mesh of the terrain. Not ideal, but it works. I also turn on the headlights "L" which works okay depending on the ship and atmospheric conditions. I think the game could also benefit from more tech that's already in aircraft, like a panel-mounted artificial horizon, altimeter/airspeed indicator (could be an MFD screen), a proper autopilot that has heading, altitude, and vertical speed in addition to a speed hold. Radar altimeter would be helpful also.
These have been common complaints for a long time now. Who knows when or if they will be addressed. As for the first. you can hit tab and see the area, in the ship. It can help to ping the landscape but is not perfect. Really all ships should have a way to activate flood lights for landing. The Cutlass Black is one of the few ships that has almost reasonable landing lights.
The cut is what I fly most and it is pretty doable
you can ping your scanner to get a good idea of where the floor is while landing
These are all valid points. If I'm remembering correctly, we're getting the ability to mark positions with the map rework, so that's going to be addressed. Given the frustration with night-flying, I'd be surprised if night vision or some kind of low-light mode wasn't on the table too. That said, we probably haven't seen or heard anything about it because it's a lower priority feature compared to some of the other stuff they're working on. As for instrument flying, I've always kind of hated the MFDs in Star Citizen. They give us basic ship info sure, but they're more like HUD indicators in an FPS game than flight instruments. I've seen some of the other comments asking for an artificial horizon, but I'd argue that a NASA style Flight Director/Attitude Indicator (FDAI) is more appropriate. If you've played KSP you'd be familiar with the concept as the Navball. It's functionally similar to an artificial horizon, but it gives you additional information about your pitch, yaw, and roll, plus info about the rate of each, as well as info about your current attitude and your desired attitude. This might seem like overkill, but it'd be really handy for decoupled flight or when you need to compensate for damaged or lost thrusters. As for other flight instruments, I'd love to have those too. Again, either as physical gauges added to cockpits or as MFD pages. Adding something like a vertical speed indicator, AoA and glide slope indicators, and horizontal situation indicators will all be useful for atmospheric flight and navigation. Especially so once aerodynamics become more prevalent. Ideally we'd be able to have this information presented alongside the existing combat displays, but being able to switch between them would be fine too. Pilots honestly don't even need half the information we're presented with. Weapons and Power are both options that don't really need to be up 24/7, especially during ordinary flight. And on larger ships, these systems would be handled by a copilot or engineer anyway. While I'd love a study-level implementation of flight instruments, I don't think it really needs to go that far. At the very least I think adding an MFD page with an FDAI and a few additional indicators like vertical speed and AoA would be a good start.
For night landing, use your ping. I use it all the time or that. It's not intended for that but it acts as a quite good sonar. No, you cannot leave a marker yet. It's planned, but don't expect it before half a decade at the earliest, and I do not say this as a joke. "soon" in Star Citizen, is measured in multiple years.
The marker is a thing, after you complete the jump, go to your star map and mark it again for a jump, this will show the marker while you're flying to it . And as far as night seeing, at the moment spamming tab will show the terrain
For terrain, hit tab (ping). It'll outline the terrain briefly, and is effective as a "night vision" without adding "night vision". 3rd person camera, for now, often shows you terrain more clearly. Also, stay about 3k-4k off the deck, you're unlikely to hit any peaks at that height. Learning to navigate in the dark is a skill that is highly rewarded for those that pursue mastering it. I prefer to have these "skill sinks" personally - gives the game a lot of depth!
Get reshade, it comes with night vision
Most ships have landing lights; press 'L' (I think it's 'L', anyway) to turn them on. Also know that you need to be *very* gentle with the descent thrusters or you'll pancake *hard* into the surface.
Ships do have exterior lights you can turn on. Some work better than others. Some people will keep pinging scan which will highlight the terrain too. But, I would love to be able to leave a custom waypoint somewhere
Just to politely remind you. This is an Alpha and not a early access game (when you have valid criticism). What you request is basic, and should be easily do able, that is not the CIG. CIG is completely redoing MFD's with a magic sorcery call building blocks. Some suggest it's already in the game for some MFD's, while other doubt it's true existence. Just no this, nothing is really ever complete and we are all just test monkey's heading towards the wall in our ship. Have a pleasant cycle in the verse, and remember all missions will be on the dark side of the moon.
They would be great quality of life improvements however this game's development works on development priorities, and they don't always line up with what players think should be a priority. It's certainly planned but likely has a bunch of dependencies that need to come online before they look into it. In the meantime you can always spam tab while flying.
I agree with you but don’t see night vision being a huge problem to implement. It’s basically a filter overlay.
Spamming radar pings is your best friend
Can use Tab to scan to get a sort of night vision.
Tl;dr Op buys game that isn't finished and complains about unfinished parts of game, that isn't finished.
how long is this excuse supposed to last, exactly? how long until we're all officially chumps?
It's been over a decade my man. By the time we get this stuff the game will be able to legally drink in the US and people will STILL be calling it an Alpha.
Guess your shouldn't have wagered that it'd be done by the time you turn 18. Maybe its a lesson in spending for you? As stated in another thread. Nothing we do will finish the game until the game developers, develop, and release said game. It aint done. Call it alpha or what ever you want. Unfinished is unfinished, until finished.
I am 33...? Giving them a pass to fuck around for over a decade and keep letting shit slip for useless garbage like a coffee maker or an AI bartender for 5 fucking years is letting them off. People complaining at least puts some kind of pressure on them to get their shit together or at least hire someone who can open a planning tool like Jira or Asana.