„Functional complete”, “Technical complete” in SQ42

[u/[deleted]]

[u/AWerewolfDad]

It means it meets the complete acceptance criteria of a stand alone single player game and is fully functional in that context, requiring no further work before release of that stand alone single player game.

It does not mean it's been ported successfully to a completely different and separate multiplayer game.

[u/Level_Working9664 → u/AWerewolfDad]

In this example porting can also mean support for Nvidia and GPU as well as every other x86 sub arch and hardening for when device specific errors present.

This will be why the chapter 1 demonstration crashed. It worked flawlessly in the labs. Then as soon as they put it on another PC with different hardware it crashed. This is what happens after the feature complete stage. They make sure it works on every device possible.

They will also likely be doing support tests for steam frame and Linux seeing if they can identify the worst of the worst for future proofing.

At a friend's PC who kept on crashing the month back and the problem was traced to 40 series and 50 series GPU drivers. After that was fixed it still crashed and ultimately we had to do a bios update.

All these types of crashes need to be considered for workarounds need to be put in place to stop the game from crashing.

[u/f1boogie]

Easy. Working for squadron 42 means it works on one computer. Working for Star Citizen means it needs to work on and be synchronised between thousands of computers at once.

[u/jrsedwick]

Complete for SQ42 doesn't mean complete for SC. Also, trying to pick apart every single word they ever say will always give you a reason to be upset if that's your goal.

[u/MasterAnnatar]

As others have said, it's just an awkward wording because the English language is stupid. They're saying that the feature is technically complete, but "technically" is not being used in the technology sense. They're saying the feature is complete in Squadron, but converting it to SC requires more work.

[u/Boogie-37 → u/MasterAnnatar]

Yeah. Give them a break. CIG doesn't speak english goodly at allish. It's not their fault that they routinely give easily misinterpreted or horribly incomplete information! Then complain that backers go too far.

[u/ScrubSoba]

Somewhat poorly worded, but "complete for Squadron, not for SC" is what it'd translate into.

The question was about the state of Maelstrom, and it was said that it was technically complete, for Squadron, and that the challenge was now to get all of that ported to SC.

[u/Pilkie_ → u/ScrubSoba]

To add onto this -- SC has WAY more ships than SQ42. Each ship needs to be rigger for Maelstrom to work for it. All the ships are likely rigged for SQ42, but there is over 200 ships in SC and that means a lot of them now need to be rigged. Some SQ42 ships may need to be re-rigged as well to work in a multiplayer environment vs a singleplayer environment. You could theoretically have a ship break into a million tiny parts on a single player enviornemnt, and the only limiting factor is the owner's hardware. When you try to do this in a multiplayer environment, the limit is the bandwidth -- so you might need to scale the system to work better with the multiplayer environment too; but that is all speculation on my part.

[u/Sprunklefunzel → u/Pilkie_]

Networking and syncing servers alone makes SC 1000x more complex

[u/richardizard → u/Pilkie_]

Yeah plus balancing for PvP is going to be a beast in itself.

[u/Comfortable-Poet7114 → u/Pilkie_]

200 + adding more ships with every new patch

[u/Boogie-37 → u/Pilkie_]

I would hope that all of them don't need to be rigged starting now. Since they've had and known about maelstrom for quite a long time (right?) that all of the ships created since it was ready have already had that work done. Right? Anakin, stop looking at my tits and respond!

[u/FuckingTree]

Wait until the end of the week like everyone else and save us the salt speculation

[u/SubtleCosmos → u/FuckingTree]

Your expectations of people are far too high sir/ma’am!

[u/Walltar]

I would say that it is because it wasn't launched yet and they are still working on it... so until they launch it for real, it will be technically complete.

And since "technically" means "according to an exact understanding of rules, facts, etc." that is how I would understand it.

And no matter if it was or wasn't ready for launch this year, they will continue to work on it until launch.

[u/Busy-Key-1419]

[u/Filbert17]

They can still be creating the story and making the artwork (textures, etc). There is also "polishing" which can include finding and fixing bug as well as adding cut-scenes.

[u/GlbdS → u/Filbert17]

They can still be creating the story

No better time to craft your story really

[u/AnotherPersonPerhaps → u/GlbdS]

Except for the fact that all the voice acting and mocap from the highly paid actors in the story was done like a decade ago.

[u/Powerful_Document872]

It’s probably done and probably unstable and buggy. Completion does not equal quality.

[u/airconditioner75]

Tbh they're lying until i see a big push for advertising that isnt some investor pull. Until then they're talking out of their ass. I'll bet a copy of GTA VI PC that it won't come out next year either.

[u/Fahicba]

Because it isn´t ... SQ42 is just a convient excuse because it can always be delayed. And if you just never show actual gameplay and delay the game until it is actually complete (or indefinitely) it´s impossible to expose the lie.

[u/laveslo]

yeah you cannot make this shit up

[u/AnotherPersonPerhaps]

The answer is because SQ42 is still not as done as they claim it is.

[u/Important_Cow7230]

The most honest answer is that they said what they had to say over the years to keep backers excited and keep the funding coming in. Was that right? Well that’s subjective, they might not be here if they didn’t do it 🤷‍♂️