ddpruitt :
They're not developing their own engine, their using someone existing tools. Hell it took Bethesda less to create Skyrim, or CryTech to create Crysis.
While it's true they're using an existing engine, to say that they're only utilizing existing tools couldn't be further from the truth. This isn't exactly news, but CryEngine 3 isn't suitable for environments at these scales, and much of the challenge of development until recently has been implementing a custom 64-bit physics and coordinate system. The flight model is custom and driven by this physics system, and the local physics grid at the heart of multicrewed ships and the first person universe is also a custom implementation.
As for the length of development, it is taking a long time, but given the scope, scale, and technical novelty of the project, I don't think it's at all unreasonable. Keep in mind that games like Skyrim and Crysis typically aren't announced until the project is deep into development, while Star Citizen was basically announced at the outset. Those games also have the benefit of their scope being largely predetermined from the beginning, while the budget and scope for Star Citizen expanded greatly over its first 2 years due to the very nature of crowd funding.
ddpruitt :
And yet they keep asking for money although they don't have anything to show for it and claim that they have enough to go on for a long time. The deadlines are slipping more and more, and they're not open about this. I've found that weekly progress reports are an easy way to give the illusion of progress. Controversial may be the wrong term, but it seems like the only defenders are those that sank money into it. The pieces they've shown are essentially small demos that shouldn't take that long to get up and running (a small team should be able to do it in a month or so). Remember A:CM, I don't believe videos until I see an actual running engine.
I'm not sure what you mean by all of this, as much of it is just objectively wrong. It kind of just sounds like you're unfamiliar with the project, and found a chance to parrot misinformed criticisms that have either been shot down countless times elsewhere, or are now easily dispelled through in-game content and behavior. They haven't had a new stretch goal since 2014 when they hit $65m, and many stretch goals have long since been fulfilled, including now the beginnings of the persistent universe.
The source of all the controversy you've alluded to was Derek Smart's fears earlier this year that CIG didn't have a solution for their 64-bit systems, which could've been a project killer on its own. Other game game devs (if you can even call Derek Smart that anymore) voiced similar concerns in this regard. This demonstrates both the difficulty of implementing such a system and its fundamental importance to the project. These systems are now easily verified by the existence of Alpha 2.0, as none of it would be feasible without higher precision.
This is by far the most open game development project ever. As you said there are weekly updates, not to mention the comprehensive monthly reports or the slew of other content they publish on a daily basis. Given just how much information is available, and how easily accessible it is, it always amazes me by how much misinformation manages to spread around. I suppose you can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't sound like you're particularly qualified to make an informed judgement either way.