Weak programmatically implementation
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Posts: 268
- Joined: Tue, 1. Jan 13, 15:48
Weak programmatically implementation
I just realized as read forum that many bad behavior, bugs come from a very weak and lame programmatically implementation which I'll describe here, but you can see it for yourself.
When you see the map, zoomed in max, you can see every station's schematic 3D "hologram-like" model. They all have a relative center to the 3D world, that is where the game puts their icon. Now if you see a ship (EVERY ship, no matter what class/type) approaching to a station, you'll see that first it will approach to this relative center of the station (exactly where game shows the station's icon), and when it reached, it will go to dock for landing.
This happen ALL the time, and every circumstances, situation.
First I thought, when you travel in one of your ship as a passenger, and command AI pilot to dock, the weird behavior when you see that pilot approaches to the station object-mesh's center first then if not stuck (because it could clip in to the 3D object) will go to dock is something to do with "player in sector" related thing, and it's bugged.
But no, this is how it's implemented in original. No matter if you are OOS or not, this happens all the time with EVERY ship, and every station. You can watch for yourself on map with zoomed in.
What a low level, lame, bad, weak programmatically solution and implementation is this?!?!?! Not saying, that 5-10 seconds (depends of the size of the station) while ship will go to dock from the object center is a waste, and in long term it's hours and hours gaming time which you have to wait...
Ships should approach stations aiming to the dock not the center of the station. No matter if OOS or not.
I know that programming an AI for such a complex game is not so easy, but you DID this several time in your previous games, dear Egosoft!!! So what did you do here? Reinvent the wheel, and implemented the most bad programmatically solution??? I can't believe that this is a AAA game, and we all pay an "AAA price" for this game!
And this is just one part of other things you just messed up. Can I ask you what did you do in the last 3-4 years? Developing the new engine, gfx. Right, I can admit, it's nice, modern, beautiful. But what about the other parts? GUI, logic, AI, database? I suppose you didn't have enough time, and as always, we're your alpha tester-group, and you sold a half-finished product...
...again. Congrats!
When you see the map, zoomed in max, you can see every station's schematic 3D "hologram-like" model. They all have a relative center to the 3D world, that is where the game puts their icon. Now if you see a ship (EVERY ship, no matter what class/type) approaching to a station, you'll see that first it will approach to this relative center of the station (exactly where game shows the station's icon), and when it reached, it will go to dock for landing.
This happen ALL the time, and every circumstances, situation.
First I thought, when you travel in one of your ship as a passenger, and command AI pilot to dock, the weird behavior when you see that pilot approaches to the station object-mesh's center first then if not stuck (because it could clip in to the 3D object) will go to dock is something to do with "player in sector" related thing, and it's bugged.
But no, this is how it's implemented in original. No matter if you are OOS or not, this happens all the time with EVERY ship, and every station. You can watch for yourself on map with zoomed in.
What a low level, lame, bad, weak programmatically solution and implementation is this?!?!?! Not saying, that 5-10 seconds (depends of the size of the station) while ship will go to dock from the object center is a waste, and in long term it's hours and hours gaming time which you have to wait...
Ships should approach stations aiming to the dock not the center of the station. No matter if OOS or not.
I know that programming an AI for such a complex game is not so easy, but you DID this several time in your previous games, dear Egosoft!!! So what did you do here? Reinvent the wheel, and implemented the most bad programmatically solution??? I can't believe that this is a AAA game, and we all pay an "AAA price" for this game!
And this is just one part of other things you just messed up. Can I ask you what did you do in the last 3-4 years? Developing the new engine, gfx. Right, I can admit, it's nice, modern, beautiful. But what about the other parts? GUI, logic, AI, database? I suppose you didn't have enough time, and as always, we're your alpha tester-group, and you sold a half-finished product...
...again. Congrats!
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri, 17. Mar 17, 15:37
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
they dont have proper gameplay programmers or designers (and they dont care about that anyway), so every game they released its a mess, and continues to be a mess, until the moders fix it,then they fix a bit as well, take some of the best mods, make "it" official, and voila Kching!
X3 is broken even now, barely playable with mods, on fleet engagements, path finding and collision (bounce mod to fix somewhat), low fps in some cases - a bug that was never fixed that improved the performance a lot (the generation of certain missions, removing half or less than that, made the game responsive, never fixed), etc. Luckly they have an army of clueless fans, that just take everything they have thrown at them, even when its a Pre-Alpha at 60$, because they are not many games like this. Once one is released on par, they go out of business next day, but so far it went quite well for them.
Just an example after several patches, that made fanboys scream, but just a few said, yeah thats fine, but the real problems are not fixed....or halfbaked fixed, because they didn't finish to implement things, and they barely understand and/or tested their game.
- auto explore - broken completely (fixed by mods, but still not optimal) --------- ignored so far by the Devs, probably on to do list, since the mods temp fixed haha
- auto trading - broken, barely makes profits - (temp fixed by euclid, but thats a cheat) ------ ignored, now it received a bit attention 1.5, but it wont be properly fixed, thats for sure, that would involved actually programming and design.
- turret accuracy/dmg, shields, hulls ------------ devs have no ideea whats goin down here, they seems they didnt really tested and designed properly cause its an ALPHA, so its a huge mess (temp fix by moders somewhat) ----- ignored by Devs (hey the sector is expaaaaaaaanding)
- half of the game is trading or managing fleets - you have no stats for how much a trader does, a miner, no custom orders for miners/traders; wings are broken(movement, speed, and orders + docking, ressuply) ----- ignored by Devs so far
- PHQ and Stations - oh my, the traders or miners if they are assigned stop doing anything, because its all based on quantities and prices (nobody told us that of course), and of course randomly miners can mine only one type of ore, even if the station needs the other one, traders the same somewhat fixed by mods, but guess what they go to sell your wares 1 credit higher in the same sytem, not the highest in his range, hahahaha, oh my, where do you get these "developers" Egosoft?
- no documentation - probably neither do the devs know what each feature does, because its an ALPHA
))
- i could continue judging on how many mods i have on (20 - no graphics, or effects) just to make it somewhat playable + my own modifications...
- they had time for diversity quotas, on Argon race, cause that was the most important thing, clearly!
The thing people just say all the time, ohhh they are small team (not really), its gona be fixed in the future (2020), these people suffer for Stockhlom syndrome, they been doing this for years, releasing broken Alphas at full price, then after 1 year actually having the full game fixed and ready with the help of mods. They have enough income to make two good x4s at the same time, but if this works, why bother. They didnt even had the decency to make it Early Access, they went for the cash in during the December, cause its their first game, oh wait ! they made tons of money for a small-medium company with their previous games, but i guess they invested all in the engine,virtue signaling and cocaine, left the rest for the players.
The definition of a cash grab. Yes it will be fixed in 6-12 months, but by then you payed 60$, to be a FREE tester and gameplay programmer+designer (modders) for Egosoft. PRICELESS!
You did it again Egosoft! Quite impressive, but with the average IQ these days, i am not completely surprised, but is still quite an outstanding feat. Release an Alpha at 60 $ and making a killing out of it. Good job!
X3 is broken even now, barely playable with mods, on fleet engagements, path finding and collision (bounce mod to fix somewhat), low fps in some cases - a bug that was never fixed that improved the performance a lot (the generation of certain missions, removing half or less than that, made the game responsive, never fixed), etc. Luckly they have an army of clueless fans, that just take everything they have thrown at them, even when its a Pre-Alpha at 60$, because they are not many games like this. Once one is released on par, they go out of business next day, but so far it went quite well for them.
Just an example after several patches, that made fanboys scream, but just a few said, yeah thats fine, but the real problems are not fixed....or halfbaked fixed, because they didn't finish to implement things, and they barely understand and/or tested their game.
- auto explore - broken completely (fixed by mods, but still not optimal) --------- ignored so far by the Devs, probably on to do list, since the mods temp fixed haha
- auto trading - broken, barely makes profits - (temp fixed by euclid, but thats a cheat) ------ ignored, now it received a bit attention 1.5, but it wont be properly fixed, thats for sure, that would involved actually programming and design.
- turret accuracy/dmg, shields, hulls ------------ devs have no ideea whats goin down here, they seems they didnt really tested and designed properly cause its an ALPHA, so its a huge mess (temp fix by moders somewhat) ----- ignored by Devs (hey the sector is expaaaaaaaanding)
- half of the game is trading or managing fleets - you have no stats for how much a trader does, a miner, no custom orders for miners/traders; wings are broken(movement, speed, and orders + docking, ressuply) ----- ignored by Devs so far
- PHQ and Stations - oh my, the traders or miners if they are assigned stop doing anything, because its all based on quantities and prices (nobody told us that of course), and of course randomly miners can mine only one type of ore, even if the station needs the other one, traders the same somewhat fixed by mods, but guess what they go to sell your wares 1 credit higher in the same sytem, not the highest in his range, hahahaha, oh my, where do you get these "developers" Egosoft?
- no documentation - probably neither do the devs know what each feature does, because its an ALPHA

- i could continue judging on how many mods i have on (20 - no graphics, or effects) just to make it somewhat playable + my own modifications...
- they had time for diversity quotas, on Argon race, cause that was the most important thing, clearly!
The thing people just say all the time, ohhh they are small team (not really), its gona be fixed in the future (2020), these people suffer for Stockhlom syndrome, they been doing this for years, releasing broken Alphas at full price, then after 1 year actually having the full game fixed and ready with the help of mods. They have enough income to make two good x4s at the same time, but if this works, why bother. They didnt even had the decency to make it Early Access, they went for the cash in during the December, cause its their first game, oh wait ! they made tons of money for a small-medium company with their previous games, but i guess they invested all in the engine,virtue signaling and cocaine, left the rest for the players.
The definition of a cash grab. Yes it will be fixed in 6-12 months, but by then you payed 60$, to be a FREE tester and gameplay programmer+designer (modders) for Egosoft. PRICELESS!
You did it again Egosoft! Quite impressive, but with the average IQ these days, i am not completely surprised, but is still quite an outstanding feat. Release an Alpha at 60 $ and making a killing out of it. Good job!
-
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Tue, 11. May 04, 15:34
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
What`s a `proper gameplay programmer or designer`?idragon wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:06 they dont have proper gameplay programmers or designers (and they dont care about that anyway), so every game they released its a mess, and continues to be a mess, until the moders fix it,then they fix a bit as well, take some of the best mods, make "it" official, and voila Kching!
Seriously, man, i`ve seen AAA games such as Bethesda Fallout 4 and Skyrim that still runs with very obvious bugs that the Devs _never_ bothered to fix. In fact this how most Devs are these days, sadly. What of EA, Ubi and their bad practises to name a few.
Is that what you mean by `proper gameplay programmers`? Because if that`s so i`d rather have Egosoft and Indie guys.
Picking out Egosoft like they`re the bad ones is hugely unfair of you both.
1. Please do more on NPC civilian/uniform variety, and bio customisations, Devs.
2. Stations need sirens/warnings when enemy is close in numbers or Station in danger of destruction (in Sandbox).
Yes, for immersion. Thankyou ahead of time. (Edit: This is actually happening!!!)
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."
"Before acting 'out of the box', consider why the box was there in the first place."
2. Stations need sirens/warnings when enemy is close in numbers or Station in danger of destruction (in Sandbox).
Yes, for immersion. Thankyou ahead of time. (Edit: This is actually happening!!!)
"No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking."
"Before acting 'out of the box', consider why the box was there in the first place."
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu, 9. Nov 17, 18:57
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
We may just be a bunch of fools and dreamers
But in the end we will always fall deeply in love with each X game
And for a very good reason, the support and the dedication from the community and the developers is like no other in this industry
But in the end we will always fall deeply in love with each X game
And for a very good reason, the support and the dedication from the community and the developers is like no other in this industry
-
- EGOSOFT
- Posts: 1934
- Joined: Wed, 12. Sep 07, 19:01
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
I don't want to defend Egosoft because X4 really is a mess, and the way they are handling releases has to be reconsidered in the future.
But. Saying that X3 is "barely playable even with mods" is such a far fetch, that... Basically, everything disproves that statement. But especially the fact that its a favourite among space sim fans.
But. Saying that X3 is "barely playable even with mods" is such a far fetch, that... Basically, everything disproves that statement. But especially the fact that its a favourite among space sim fans.
-
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 11, 21:18
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Which dock?
They obviously did it this way 'cos stations can have multiple docks. So a ship has to approach the station first then ask for docking permission and get assigned a specific bay.
-
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Wed, 5. Dec 18, 06:17
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Not quite true. The best devs and communities come from small indie companies. The ones that truelly do amazing jobs are usually 1-3 devs and they usually engage the community personally.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 3230
- Joined: Mon, 14. Jul 08, 13:07
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Yeah, but "approach", not "fly to the center of mass"Gregorovitch wrote:They obviously did it this way 'cos stations can have multiple docks. So a ship has to approach the station first then ask for docking permission and get assigned a specific bay.

-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Tue, 4. Dec 18, 16:54
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
which does not make any sense even reading you... they could just get in a specific distance to the station, ask docking permission and get assigned or they could get assigned at any time, flying into the center of the station is nonsenseGregorovitch wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:37Which dock?
They obviously did it this way 'cos stations can have multiple docks. So a ship has to approach the station first then ask for docking permission and get assigned a specific bay.
pfff, fallout 4 and skyrim even with their release time bugs were far better than x4 will be at the end, they are full of content and their main functions are working, unlike in x4Socratatus wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:15What`s a `proper gameplay programmer or designer`?idragon wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:06 they dont have proper gameplay programmers or designers (and they dont care about that anyway), so every game they released its a mess, and continues to be a mess, until the moders fix it,then they fix a bit as well, take some of the best mods, make "it" official, and voila Kching!
Seriously, man, i`ve seen AAA games such as Bethesda Fallout 4 and Skyrim that still runs with very obvious bugs that the Devs _never_ bothered to fix. In fact this how most Devs are these days, sadly. What of EA, Ubi and their bad practises to name a few.
Is that what you mean by `proper gameplay programmers`? Because if that`s so i`d rather have Egosoft and Indie guys.
Picking out Egosoft like they`re the bad ones is hugely unfair of you both.
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu, 9. Nov 17, 18:57
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Teams composed by 2-3 people could never create an engine from scratch and make a space sandbox game with this graphics and depht
-
- Posts: 155
- Joined: Thu, 9. Nov 17, 18:57
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Guys, do you understand that your rant will not get to anything besides discouraging people?
-
- Posts: 783
- Joined: Wed, 5. Dec 18, 06:17
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
I wasn't ranting. Just stating my opinion. The best devs are usually really small indie teams (however there are also small indie teams and single devs who screwed their community).
I think OP is right on one point, how do you manage to bring in the same bugs time after time after time? After 18 Years of making X games they should have the basics down from the get go.
And new players maybe should be descouraged till the game is fixed, in 6-12 months. It's contra productive for buyers who don't know what they are getting into.
Last edited by ApoxNM on Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:05, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Mon, 4. Nov 13, 19:03
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
I would have to understand the rant first.
With English as bad as that it is hard to take this post even seriously. Even if you are a top end programmer and write a rant as bad as this, you lose all the credibility.
-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Tue, 4. Dec 18, 16:54
-
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 11, 21:18
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Yeah, I don't know how they've done it but I suspect it goes something like this:radcapricorn wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:40Yeah, but "approach", not "fly to the center of mass"Gregorovitch wrote:They obviously did it this way 'cos stations can have multiple docks. So a ship has to approach the station first then ask for docking permission and get assigned a specific bay.![]()
You have a main navigation AI module that gets ships from A to B (where A and B are things like stations). This will work on point-to-point geometry, it won't know anything about the physical structures of stations etc (which are really big). Hence a ship will aim for the station's official map point coordinate - probably the center of it's plot. It's not practical for this main nav AI to concern itself with specific station geometry etc. Far too expensive and (mostly) completely unnecessary.
When the ships gets in range to request docking permission the main nav AI will hand over to a docking AI module. This will be aware of the specific station geometry in 3D. It is also an extremely tricky bit of programming. Pathfinding in games is hard enough in 2D let alone round 3D X4 style station that can be built in all sorts of ways with docks placed wherever basically.
A further problem is that the hand over from nav AI to docking AI has got to be scheduled in the AI queue, it won't happen instantly. This gives ample opportunity for the ship to carry on flying along whatever vector it happened to flying along at the point it requested docking position, in essence flying blind with no instructions until the docking AI kicks in.
Therefore sometimes ships in this "limbo" will get themselves into awkward and sometimes laughable situations which the docking AI then has to try to sort out when it gets control. Sometimes. Which is of course what we see and comment about when we get annoyed with it.
On a real spaceship of course a switch over from main nav AI to docking AI like this would be instantaneous but obviously in a game there is only one AI for all ships and only a certain number of threads can be allocated to it, and then of course your processor has the schedule the threads..... That's the problem.
If you were a game programmer asked to code this behavior the correct and professional reaction would be "Gulp!". If it wasn't then you wouldn't know what you were doing.
-
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Tue, 4. Dec 18, 16:54
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
again belittling the other forum members, i guess you have nothing better to do. op is right in many ways, like it or not
-
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 11, 21:18
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Yeah, I don't know how they've done it but I suspect it goes something like this:radcapricorn wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 22:40Yeah, but "approach", not "fly to the center of mass"Gregorovitch wrote:They obviously did it this way 'cos stations can have multiple docks. So a ship has to approach the station first then ask for docking permission and get assigned a specific bay.![]()
You have a main navigation AI module that gets ships from A to B (where A and B are things like stations). This will work on point-to-point geometry, it won't know anything about the physical structures of stations etc (which are really big). Hence a ship will aim for the station's official map point coordinate - probably the center of it's plot. It's not practical for this main nav AI to concern itself with specific station geometry etc. Far too expensive and (mostly) completely unnecessary.
When the ships gets in range to request docking permission the main nav AI will hand over to a docking AI module. This will be aware of the specific station geometry in 3D. It is also an extremely tricky bit of programming. Pathfinding in games is hard enough in 2D let alone round 3D X4 style station that can be built in all sorts of ways with docks placed wherever basically.
A further problem is that the hand over from nav AI to docking AI has got to be scheduled in the AI queue, it won't happen instantly. This gives ample opportunity for the ship to carry on flying along whatever vector it happened to flying along at the point it requested docking position, in essence flying blind with no instructions until the docking AI kicks in.
Therefore sometimes ships in this "limbo" will get themselves into awkward and sometimes laughable situations which the docking AI then has to try to sort out when it gets control. Sometimes. Which is of course what we see and comment about when we get annoyed with it.
On a real spaceship of course a switch over from main nav AI to docking AI like this would be instantaneous but obviously in a game there is only one AI for all ships and only a certain number of threads can be allocated to it, and then of course your processor has the schedule the threads..... That's the problem.
If you were a game programmer asked to code this behavior the correct and professional reaction would be "Gulp!". If it wasn't then you would be already out of your depth before you started.
Last edited by Gregorovitch on Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:16, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 3230
- Joined: Mon, 14. Jul 08, 13:07
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
If I was a game programmer, I'd make sure artists placed valid entry/exit directions at each dock, then use those directions to find intersections with the station's bounding sphere, and place smaller approach volumes at those points, directing a ship to first enter that volume before switching to a docking maneuver. Gulp?Gregorovitch wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:08 If you were a game programmer asked to code this behavior the correct and professional reaction would be "Gulp!". If it wasn't then you wouldn't know what you were doing.
Last edited by radcapricorn on Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:30, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon, 5. Sep 11, 21:18
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Well, something like that might work were it not for the fact that the player can also build stations, and most build a lot of stations by the end of the game, so that idea is bust I'm afraid.radcapricorn wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:16I was a game programmer, I'd make sure artists placed valid entry/exit directions at each dock, then use those directions to find intersections with the station's bounding sphere, and place smaller approach volumes at those points, directing a ship to first enter that volume before switching to a docking maneuver. Gulp?Gregorovitch wrote: ↑Sat, 15. Dec 18, 23:08 If you were a game programmer asked to code this behavior the correct and professional reaction would be "Gulp!". If it wasn't then you wouldn't know what you were doing.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 10770
- Joined: Mon, 19. Dec 05, 21:23
Re: Weak programmatically implementation
Please restrict the content of your posts to the subject of the thread, not each other.
Rule 1. "Personal abuse directed towards another forum member is not permitted under any circumstances. If you are offended by another user's post or conduct, try to contact that user directly to peacefully resolve the issue. In most cases a single PM can solve misunderstandings quickly. If you do not succeed, please contact a moderator for assistance. Do not respond in kind."
Rule 1. "Personal abuse directed towards another forum member is not permitted under any circumstances. If you are offended by another user's post or conduct, try to contact that user directly to peacefully resolve the issue. In most cases a single PM can solve misunderstandings quickly. If you do not succeed, please contact a moderator for assistance. Do not respond in kind."
Open Rights Group - Is your site being blocked
Electronic Frontier Foundation - Online Censorship
The Linux Foundation - Let’s Encrypt
Check if your Email account has been pwned
Electronic Frontier Foundation - Online Censorship
The Linux Foundation - Let’s Encrypt
Check if your Email account has been pwned