Hey all. Citizen Gamer created a great video summing up Star Citizen Problems. At first I posted just the video leaving my commentary aside, but It seams that if I do that, the video is treated as a "Fan Creation" and not a start to discussion and moved to different section of the forums, so I will lay out a wall of text of what I think. Here is Video by Citizen Gamer (thnx @Jarus): They highlighted a few problems (to which I will add a bit of my comment): Firstly noted that large ships should have enough fuel to travel long distances. Personally I agree. A fighter might not have enough fuel to travel long distances, but a large ship should have enough fuel to travel from Crusader to Hurston and back. Next They went to ESP. They noted that ESP is actually a method for an FPS game on consoles to help you target. If the game is built like an FPS it requires FPS fixes. If the game were more like flight sim, then that mechanics was not really needed. (He explains it much better than me). I have to agree with them, CiG should actually decide what they want to build. Is it a ship FPS game or is it a simulation game (even if simplified one). If it is the former, then ships should fly more like planes, where main engine actually has most output. I have to agree with his assessment on ship startup (and stopping) procedure. Turning the ship just by simple switch is really not immersive. A star ship should not start by just simple switch. Engines should warm up, reactor should start up and so on. It does not mean You have to do it all by hand, but it should take a bit of time. I am partially on board about what they are talking about take offs and landings. Star Citizen has ok-ish level of difficulty but if we change flight mechanics it may get a bit more difficult, which in my opinion is good. It should require a bit of skill. DCS is much to far in that difficulty spectrum and I would not go that far, but there should be some level of challenge. I will omit pitch and roll part, as I have no real opinion on that - listen to the video. They is talking about g-forces and makes excellent points. Interesting comparison to F16 was made and needed IFCs adjustment to make SC just work. His idea was to make ships fly they way they should in atmosphere and then just make some adjustments so that they behave good in space too. This is one point that might not be that easy. One thing that he forgot was drag and friction. Both of them allow planes to change direction quite quickly. In space those forces would have to be made by thrusters and those are quite large forces. If a pilot pulls 10G then it actually means that plane takes 10G and if You would want to do the same turn in space, then Thrusters would have to create same force. Having thrusters that can make 10G acceleration effectively allow a plane to hover in place without the need to use that friction - which is what we actually have. I think this is one point where CG might be actually wrong. Then They talk about MFD. He talks how DSC has much less of them and still they bring more information and the whole picture is much clearer. He does forget tho, that to see all of them You have to use trackIR. I have to agree with general idea tho. DCS has much clearer displays and give a lot more information without clustering it all like SC does. They introduces idea to use "idiot lights" that would inform you if your engine is on fire and such;) I can not agree more. You don't need to have full information at all times but summarized information in form of warning light (and maybe a sound signal) is a good idea. At least for most important systems like life support, shields, reactor and so on. You could still get full information on some screens if you switch to them, but You would not have to have them on for the whole time and still get the warning. They stated that having a ship that is dedicated tracker should have a clear advantage over standard fighter. He proposed idea that radar should work normally in a cone, like on normal fighter. Standard fighter would have a 90 deg cone which would make it easy to sneak up on it, while Hornet tracker would have 360 degree. I think idea is good, tho I would modify it a bit. I would give a fighter a mix of the 2. a 360 very short range radar and a cone of 90 degree with normal range with some target retention (like for 5 seconds). This way while in dog fight You might not loose your target all the time but still a dedicated tracker would have an advantage. As for missiles. I agree completely. Currently there is no variety, all missiles are the same and should not be. Different types of missiles should be used in different ways. Guns. He stated that modern planes shoot in cone which makes it easier to hit your target evene without using ESP. Star citizen uses very precise aiming. He proposed a lower paste of the game and using bullet saturation to help with the hitting. Actually he might be right. A sniper rifle on a space ship? There are no planes that would use a sniper rifle... Defenses: Personally I think they have good idea, but I would go further. There should be 3 main types of shields : high regen/low hp, standard, high hp / low regen. But at the same time I think that it should be a modification to a shield. Standard shield should vary by size, and shield HP should rise exponentially with shield size while shield regen should rise lineally. This way a large shield will have a lot of HP but not that large proportional regeneration giving you a big buffer while fighter would use its shield as immediate buffer which allows you to get out of line of fire. On top of that I would add those shield types. What do You think? PS. This Wall of text dedicated to WhiteMagic :wink: &TLDR: Sorry, no TLDR - there were many points in that video and that above is the short version.