Not the engineers, Roberts & Co.. Whatever these people have the engineers do, hasn't resulted in too many met Kickstarter promises, yet.
It's also not the talking about the "underpinnings" that's an issue (although the talk to delivering ration seems to be on a nearly unmatched low for Star Citizen), it's the constant overselling of everything they do as the next best shit. This doesn't come from engineers, who tend to be mostly honest about their work. This comes from the management.
Take procedural landings.
"Procedural landings" my ass. The term is manual. The initally shown and suggested landing (Gamescom 2014) was guided or "on rails", whereas having complete control from space to landing on a surface, no matter if the surface is procedurally generated or not, means it's manual. The landing itself has nothing procedural about it. There is no fixed, but random looking seed going into a landing algorith, which then generates the landing based on that seed and further parameters to look vastly different each time. But Roberts needs to give off the impression they're doing something special. And such, the procedural landing was invented.
The recent editor video they showed looked very much like a "brush" like tool to me, that places patterns and stitches them together. For patterns seem to be there or at the very least have been:
Seems like an approach that isn't quite as procedural as other approaches and may potentially be much less computationally intensive, depending on how the stitching and reusing of pattern works, while delivering nice looking results. Whenever "Alpha 3.0" or whatever comes around, we'll be able to see for ourselves. Everything shown until then, I would put under tech demo.
