Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[Lorca 10]

fixed it for you. ;)

Lol, that's more like it. I actually sometimes like to eat popcorn when I spectate multiplayer Crysis.

---------- Post added at 02:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Hi all

There are several key factors that a CRY engine based training tools have to answer.

Profit

Is there a profit in their business model?

This is the first hurdle and from looking at their website I am afraid they have failed.

BIS make a profit by providing a true COTS product to the customer. They make their profit from selling the licence and providing a support package. They are also in a position to provide upgrades internationally by allowing core upgrades to be financed by any customer or group of customers and then roll them out as part of the support package to all customers or alternately to provide them as modules. Using this model VBS is continuously upgraded to meet further training needs at very low cost.

The key problem for the CRY engine competitor is that they have signed over the upgrades to their business partners. Who they then license the game engine too. These then each have to make a profit. This means also two layers of cost and profit. Inefficient at best and a massive cost increase and value decrease at worst.

First there is the CRY engines costs and profit then there is each of the Prime Partners costs and profits, and from my experience of how the primes work they will be looking for the lions share of the profits; say charging a Million US dollars to change the uniforms of some of the units. The key factor to making a profit from the Primes Cost Plus business model is HIGH COSTS THE HIGHER THE BETTER because you are making ~10% on that cost so the business model drives you to increase cost. As 10% of 10,000 is nothing like the profits of 10% of a million.

And serving those two masters is what will kill a CRY engine based solution.

Training Value

Can a CRY engine based solution fulfill unmet training needs?

You do not need great physics or graphics to fulfill a training need, of far more importance is the scenario development tool and the AAR tool. In the past this would have been a complicated process only to be carried out by the high priests of technical Primeness, developers along with a superannuated retired ex colonel/major or two employed as subject matter experts; to say it fulfilled the training need.

You also ideally institute a revolving door VV&A process, though if the customer catches you doing this you could be in deep doo doo.

VBS changed that. It placed the scenario development in the hands of serving training sergeants and training officers. This cut development time of training tools to months and even weeks or days.

It also removed scenario development as major income stream for primes. There is still a business in Scenario development but it is in training the customer to use the tool and offering a refinement service to existing training scenarios that are not efficiently using code. This follows the Rapid Application Development (RAD) philosophy to its logical conclusion of letting the customer design what they want then going in and improving the code, by both refining it and adding neat bells and whistles.

You also train them as part of this, by telling them and even writing down the process and putting it on a Wiki; "this I what I did this is how I did it", this builds the customer relationship making them more loyal. You are also creating future developers of your product who will then become contractors who prefer to use your product. It is called exceeding your customers expectations. It also incidentally excludes competitors who might seek to exploit this market.

Capability

Is the cry engine capable of fulfilling and bettering the same training as the existing system?

Now here is the point where the CRY engine supporters say they can win. Only they can't.

Physics Superiority! of ... wait a minute :butbut: :( :mad:

The Physics superiority is a myth based on client side physics that can only work in Single Player mode, I explained why in previous posts. The customer is not dumb and knows this. Even if they go down a Server side solution how are they going to get all that info to more than say 5 clients over existing network technology? As I keep saying on this subject: DO THE MATH! How much data has to sent per simulation frame multiply by number of clients and try to fit it in to your network capability of and dont forget network overheads like packet headers and footers.

You also seem to be under the wrong impression that BIS do not want such physics and are incapable of it, sorry but you are wrong, they did the math and decided; it was not technically possible, within the constraints of current physics understanding and Internet technology; and so stuck it on the back burner. And if even if a hardware solution exists, it exists for all engines including the RV engine. So any competitive advantage it could create is negated instantly.

On graphics.

The customer is only marginally interested in graphics quality they are aware that the human brain fills in, something a graphics whore is not aware of as they over focus in a decal being an inch out of place, and something a training soldier who is absorbed in the training would never notice, and VBS is being continuously developed and its graphics improved but more importantly the CRY engine is not capable of the view distances needed and so the CRY engine is fundamentally graphically deficient for military simulation needs.

Entity Count

Part of what VBS does is act as a visualisation tool for constructive simulators, this requires a capability of thousands and thousands of entities. Something the CRY engine cannot do.

Conclusion

In conclusion: The CRY engine has no way of making a profit, so is business disaster waiting to happen. It brings in no new training value, so wont have any customers, unless you count the primes trying to use it as a life vest. And is technically not up to the job, just cant hack it.

Kind Regards walker

Yeah, nothing beats BI customer service.

[Baff1 0]

Could you link me to some stand-out mods and total conversions then? I ask because I went looking recently, thinking I'd buy Crysis now it's cheap just to have a play with all the mods that have been in production since 2007 for a cutting-edge engine with state-of-the-art tools and found diddly squat. Didn't bother in the end, seemed like nobody was playing it or modding it much and what was in production seemed to be moving at a glacial pace. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places?

There is a Mech Warrior mod out there that is pretty much a must play for any Mech fans. It's MP adversarial only unfotunately, or at least it was last time I played it..

Here's a list from their modding website.

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php

Personally I've always been completely amazed that this game engine has not been lisenced out by other developers so far.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Baff1

[froggyluv 2130]

The Physics superiority is a myth based on client side physics that can only work in Single Player mode...

And how exactly does primarily being a SP functionality make it a myth?

This is troubling to SP gamers out there - why do anything if it cant translate properly over the net...? Why strive to make advanced AI when there are humans out there thereby easing our workload?

I didn't care for crysis, too many monsters and not enough room to move, but some of the technology aspects were impressive. I just hope internet incapabilties don't equate with less striving for new features and advancements for those of us that could care less for online warring.

Edited January 16, 2011 by froggyluv

[Defunkt 431]

So your not prepared to play a game or check its editor yourself unless mods are involved?

Tooling around in a nanosuit isn't really my thing and (to my surprise) there didn't seem to be much more than that happening with the game/engine/tools.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Tooling around in a nanosuit isn't really my thing and (to my surprise) there didn't seem to be much more than that happening with the game/engine/tools.

Hold on a min, do you actually have the game or not? Cause from my understanding you dont and have already made your decision that its shit even tho youve actually done fuck all in the editor and dont even have the game lol.

You are basicly the same as people who havnt played ArmA2 or explored its editor, yet they somehow come to the conclusion thats its shit non the less. Sorry but you just anit no different than they are.

[max power 21]

I think he was saying that the sci-fi super-soldier fps genre doesn't appeal to him aesthetically.

[Defunkt 431]

Hold on a min, do you actually have the game or not? Cause from my understanding you dont and have already made your decision that its shit even tho youve actually done fuck all in the editor and dont even have the game lol.

You are basicly the same as people who havnt played ArmA2 or explored its editor, yet they somehow come to the conclusion thats its shit non the less. Sorry but you just anit no different than they are.

What the fuck? Who called the game shit? As Max says I didn't buy it on release because the sci-fi super-soldier thing doesn't appeal. Having researched it 2 years on I still didn't buy it because (and I was asking for examples to the contrary) that's all I can see happening with it still.

---------- Post added at 10:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 AM ----------

Actually, having just perused the crymod forum I see a new mod which is much more my speed (and one I'd buy the game to play if it makes release) has announced 10 days ago. Nevertheless, isn't anyone else (even the double-plus-fans) surprised that an engine/toolset which one might expect to be top of the modding heap doesn't have more happening and that what is happening seems pretty slow to progress? This I think is central to RTI's challenge because they've a heap of catching up to do in terms of content and capability.

[dm 9]

Nevertheless, isn't anyone else (even the double-plus-fans) surprised that an engine/toolset which one might expect to be top of the modding heap doesn't have more happening and that what is happening seems pretty slow to progress?

Thats actually a pretty good point. And I hate you for thinking of it before me :P

[Baff1 0]

[/color]Actually, having just perused the crymod forum I see a new mod which is much more my speed (and one I'd buy the game to play if it makes release) has announced 10 days ago. Nevertheless, isn't anyone else (even the double-plus-fans) surprised that an engine/toolset which one might expect to be top of the modding heap doesn't have more happening and that what is happening seems pretty slow to progress? This I think is central to RTI's challenge because they've a heap of catching up to do in terms of content and capability.

There looked ot be over a 1,000 mods on that forum of one variety or another.

There are usually mods out on the first day of one of their game releases. A Co-op mod and some new maps I seem to remember being the first I noticed.

I remember a lot of people trying to make Ghost Recon style mods for Far Cry. A gamestyle it is emminently suited to.

The map making tool is frankly the best level designer on the mod scene that I have seen.

I can't tell you if it is lacking in capability. It seems a highly capable engine to me. About as capable as they come.

But still, this is only the seventh time I've heard of the game engine being lisenced.

When you compare that to engines like Unreal or even Valves... it strikes me as being incredably poor sales for what has after all been the the leading technology engine on the PC for many years now.

I wonder if it will take off any better now that they have released a properly consolised version.

[noubernou 77]

The licenses for the cry engine are very expensive... Unless you are making something thats going to be a guaranteed hit (or at least do moderately well) then its not worth the investment for gaming.

In a market like the one VBS2 is in where you can sell seats at a 1000$ a pop and service contracts in the tens of thousands per month, then it becomes a bit more digestible.

Again though... this is a really moot subject as I have stated before.

RTI supports the CryEngine and helps OTHER studios with their development. I am pretty sure they are even related to Crytek.

[Lorca 10]

Only because there aren't many mods for Crysis(like some people may think) doesn't mean that its editor is not good. I guess Cryteck did many things right with Crysis visuals and whatnot that one would say that modders don't have a laundry list of stuff to improve upon. In fact, if I recall, there are only two official patches for Crysis released. I've played many good user-made missions in Crysis and even though they're great and fun there isn't much "new" stuff brought to the table, at least in the missions I've played. I can't wait to use BI's editor. I'm pretty sure it has good features that no other engine has.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Lorca

[noubernou 77]

So now this is a discussion about the CryEngines editor?

Yes it is better... is the engine? Maybe, maybe not, we haven't seen it used or demonstrated in anyway comparable to what is done in VBS2 (REMEMBER THIS IS COMPETING AGAINST VBS2 NOT ARMA2, its not for the general public) so really this topic is rather pointless to even argue.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I stated how good the scenario editor is and whether it is available WITH THE GAME as included in the product is the KEY factor in whether or not a CRY engine military simulation can survive in the market that VBS changed. The reason that VBS is successful is because it changed the market so that the training sergeants and officers can now make the training scenarios, and no longer have to rely on the high priests of Prime.

It is also the reason ArmA is successful as a product. And by including the scenario editor in the engine since BIS's OFP days, that is what created the Modding community. Modders start with making missions, then add scripts to improve the missions, then as they become more capable they learn to add new weapons, uniforms, vehicles and aircraft until they are adding islands and making complex scripted addons that change the functionality of the engine.

In essence the RV engine provides a developer training platform. This is why BIS's OFP/ArmA/VBS family is the most modded game/military simulation engine in the world by a factor of 100.

Unless the CRY engine can provide all those tools to all its users from the start, eg. with the game, then it has NO possibility of becoming a competitor to VBS. It then has to engender a free and open forum community that encourages intelligent debate on all subjects in order to attract intelligent people to its modding community.

If it wants to beat VBS then it has to be prepared to open up as much as possible of the engine while having a CEO and management team who have the courage keep to and manage a vision for the product that draws in the modding teams, ideally allowing them to MOD and sell the best of their work.

In the past the business saying was: "Your assets go up and down in the lifts.", now they sit in the cloud, and if you want them rain gold on you, you need to do the rain dance.

Any game engine that offers to allow Modders and Mod teams to create their dreams will draw in the MOD teams like bears to honey, and with those vast numbers of modders they will then be able to compete with VBS and ArmA; but not only that, such an engine and company will control the games and simulation market, because they will simply out develop their competitors. Oh by the way, BIS know this.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 17, 2011 by walker

[Baff1 0]

The licenses for the cry engine are very expensive... Unless you are making something thats going to be a guaranteed hit (or at least do moderately well) then its not worth the investment for gaming.

In a market like the one VBS2 is in where you can sell seats at a 1000$ a pop and service contracts in the tens of thousands per month, then it becomes a bit more digestible.

I'm sorry but I find it highly doubtful that VBS makes more money for BIS than ArmA does.

And it certainly doesn't make more money than COD does.

It's a nice little earner I'm sure, but mass market is where the big money is.

If it was anything other than this, then the big competition in the video games industry would be for the military market and it isn't. 99 out of every 100 games producers make entertainment products.

A software that costs $1,000 each time, sells very few copies and requires as much if not more support and development time to manufacture.

How many copies of VBS2 have they sold?

I bet it isn't measured in tens of thousands.

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------

Only because there aren't many mods for Crysis(like some people may think) doesn't mean that its editor is not good. I guess Cryteck did many things right with Crysis visuals and whatnot that one would say that modders don't have a laundry list of stuff to improve upon. In fact, if I recall, there are only two official patches for Crysis released. I've played many good user-made missions in Crysis and even though they're great and fun there isn't much "new" stuff brought to the table, at least in the missions I've played. I can't wait to use BI's editor. I'm pretty sure it has good features that no other engine has.

I think it would rather depend on what you are comparing it too.

It has a lot of mods compared to most games on the market. But very few compared to some. ArmA, Unreal ,Quake and Half Life for example.

But certainly it is a significantly moddable and modded game engine. They have released tools with their games and clearly wish to lisence the engine a part of their sales strategy.

Also only having "only" 2 patches is a good thing. More patches = bad. Less patches = good.

No patches at all = excellent.

We all appreciate bug fixes for our games, but most of all we appreciate games with no bugs to fix.

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

Any game engine that offers to allow Modders and Mod teams to create their dreams will draw in the MOD teams like bears to honey,

Actually I think there is something more required than the ability to mod. I think the game has to be good in the first place.

I don't think it's mod tools tht attract people to a game. I think it is the game that attracts people to the mod tools.

I think in any amount of players a porportion of them will wish to mod stuff.

So if you make a shit game that is moddable, there won't be many mods, because it is a shit game and no one is intrested in it. (Cough Cough OpF DR)

If you make a great game and lots of people play it... then lots of people will want to mod it.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Baff1

[dmarkwick 261]

How many copies of VBS2 have they sold?

I bet it isn't measured in tens of thousands.

I think you'd be surprised. Australian army, British army, American army, Marines, all the other various country's armies, they pay more than £1000 per pop because they get tailored solutions. In fact it's more like a few thou per pop plus money per year for contractive support etc.

Actually I think there is something more required than the ability to mod. I think the game has to be good in the first place.

I don't think it's mod tools tht attract people to a game. I think it is the game that attracts people to the mod tools.

I think in any amount of players a porportion of them will wish to mod stuff.

So if you make a shit game that is moddable, there won't be many mods, because it is a shit game and no one is intrested in it. (Cough Cough OpF DR)

If you make a great game and lots of people play it... then lots of people will want to mod it.

Has to be a combo IMO. A great game with poor mod abilities doesn't get a lot of mod interest, and also it has to have a general longevity associated with it.

[dm 9]

How many copies of VBS2 have they sold?

I bet it isn't measured in tens of thousands.

You should google "enterprise licence".

We all appreciate bug fixes for our games, but most of all we appreciate games with no bugs to fix.

I can has plane tickets to this wonderful, magical, mystical, world you live in where software has no bugs?

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Game is BIS's key earner and where it develops the engine. It amazes me how many people think it is the other way round but stupid is as stupid does.

The reason game engines can work in the military simulations market is because the development costs and most importantly the Beta Testing is covered by the game, which is developed in a the high tech bleeding edge cut throat and 100% capitalist games market. VBS is just an additional product based off the cash cow of an already developed engine.

A bespoke simulation supplier could never and will never be able to apply a development team of the size and skill that a game engine creator can. Most bespoke Prime developers have actual development teams of perhaps 6 often low grade and badly paid developers, it may have tens of sales people and administrators in order to increase the cost on which to base cost plus which is what the Primes Business model is.

Nor can it take advantage of a community to beta test and develop new product.

This is an economy of scale advantage that a games engine has over other sources of simulation environment.

That plus the development environments are completely the opposite.

The game engine environment is Rapid Application Development.

The Prime's market is the Bespoke Government Pork Business of: secure a contract to do a research project, secure another contract to expand it into test environment, secure another to create a product based on the test environment, secure increased costs to test it, secure bigger costs to implement it on a small scale, secure, bigger costs to implement it on a medium scale plus a support contract that the costs are kept to maximum to ensure the maximum cost, on which to the base the cost plus percentage on so that profit is maximised. And also ensuring the product is out of date when it comes to market, so that the process must now be repeated so that the gravy can continue to flow in.

The sales models are also completely different COTS means you have already developed the product and supply it ready to work out of the box at a set up front cost. Maybe even let the customer try it for free first. Agree a license and some support package over a fixed term

The Bespoke is secure a flexible budget first then develop maximising cost at every oportunity.

Kind Regards walker

[dmarkwick 261]

The Game is BIS's key earner and where it develops the engine. It amazes me how many people think it is the other way round but stupid is as stupid does.

I don't think it would be a stupid assumption. Of course, I don't have access to BIS internal financial information so I'd assume what a lot of people do: that the military represents a great paying customer. Particularly as ArmA2 et al has such a relatively small gaming market :)

[walker 0]

Hi DMarkwick

ArmA II uses Real Virtuality III engine where as VBS2 uses the Real Virtuality II engine. Though with the VTK some additions to the engine were made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Virtuality_(game_engine)

The military customer is far more interested in the stability of mature systems that will run on their existing computers rather than top of the range gaming PCs, and who can blame them after experiencing years of the Prime's beta code products.

The military prefers code that the gamers have tested to destruction. Many in the community see modules used in VBS2 and assume that it is the more up to date engine, when in fact the simulation always trails the game in essence the community ensures the code is thoroughly beta tested and its intricacies and weaknesses are either ironed out or specified, before lives are put at risk using it.

In effect the community performs much of the quality control and even some of the VV&A for the core engine, before it gets placed before the more exacting military customer.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 17, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

Urgh, I've kept my mouth shut as long as I could, but you're really full of shit sometimes walker.

So many changes have been made to the VBS branch of the ArmA project as to consider it a completley different technology. As for the community performing QA, thats laughable. VBS2 was released barely 5 months after ArmA, and a full 13 months before the final ArmA patch. Its had so many bugs squashed since then, to claim that the ArmA community had much to do with that is ridiculous.

Not to mention the amount of tech, engine, scripted or otherwise thats been added in. You only have to look at the press releases to see the endless features and functionality thats been added by BIA. How do you figure the community tested that?

I like the notion that lives are put at risk by training on "buggy" software... You know that all the training they do with things like VBS is supplimentary right? Surely you do, what with being so knowledgeable...

If only you really knew... :j:

[walker 0]

Hi DM

Sorry to annoy you but...

I am sorry my being so forthright upsets you but I have no intention of changing what I said. Although I am open to reasoned debate changing my opinions or beliefs; I will not stop being forthright about them. They are what I hold to be true and so I will continue to defend them vigorously but honestly and without rancour.

I am quite happy to clarify and refine the things I state though.

VBS is the child of OFP/ArmA not the other way round as so many mistakenly believe.

I do not deny that VBS2 particularly with the VTK is a heavily modded form of ArmA, in point of fact it was the first sentence of my last post; but it is not ArmA II which is precisely my argument. Nor do I deny, before some one brings it up that VBS2 mods find their way back to ArmA II; when they have no security implication.

My point is clear VBS2 uses the Real Virtuality (RV) 2 engine same as ArmA I, not the RV 3 engine that is used in ArmA II, though I understand that some aspects of RV3 are brought in with the VTK.

Community QA an accident but never the less a fact

I am stating that the community QA the engine by testing its reliability and complaining about its shortcomings both in SP mode and editing missions and editing and playing missions in MP; in the harshest of environments by the way, that is the public gaming Internet. Note I am not saying there is anything wrong with this; I think it is merely a benefit that arises due to the need to fix bugs for the community. That it has a benefit for the customers of VBS is just a fact that arises from the fact VBS is a heavily modded form of the game engine and you cannot build the mods until the engine is built first.

Bad simulations do kill people

As to the point about lives the whole concept of VV&A is that simulations can put lives at risk that is why they do VV&A. I am not saying that community perform the VV&A I am saying, and I quote from my own post many of the game engines "intricacies and weaknesses are either ironed out or specified" by the community and that it informs the VV&A and fitness for purpose, process.

The Cry Engine developers are getting the cart before the horse

One of the key weaknesses of this supposed VBS competitor is that they have got the cart before the horse, develop the game first then mod the game into the military simulator is the way BIS do it, and they do so for the very good reasons I pointed out.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 17, 2011 by walker

[dm 9]

but it is not ArmA II which precisely my argument.

Who ever said that it was?

This whole tirrade was sparked off by you missinterpreting DMarkwicks comment.

The only things people have said in this thread about the VBS / ArmA relationship is that Arma2 probably makes BI more money than VBS does. At no point do I see anyone claiming that VBS is the parent of Arma2 (although I agree, its frustrating seeing how often people claim "Arma2 is a watered down version of VBS2" but like you said, stupid is as stupid does.

I also still fail to see how the community can QA a product you're so keen to point out is unrelated to the current game iteration? Like I said, the VBS side of things has clearly changed so much that any coincidental reports from the old ArmA1 community are long out of date and no help to anyone.

[walker 0]

...I also still fail to see how the community can QA a product you're so keen to point out is unrelated to the current game iteration? Like I said, the VBS side of things has clearly changed so much that any coincidental reports from the old ArmA1 community are long out of date and no help to anyone.

Hi DM

Community QA an accident but never the less a fact

I am saying the QA on the RV engine is carried out before VBS is released in the pure fact of all the community playing the game and writing posts saying this is a bug etc.

On the money

As to the money question, the development of the engine is paid for by two things best summed up by the phrase "the past" the code is built on legacy code and the development costs of the last iteration of the game. And unless you see audited sales figures one cannot tell how much money BIS make out of game sales. We can say ArmA II has been the most successful version of the RV engine so far though, as various charts place it above MW 2 for steam and steam users make up only a small amount of the community.

What pays for VBS and why its sales are a cash cow

I agree that the modifications that build on the engine and turn it from the game into VBS are paid for by the military customer; that is why they buy the licence but my point is that this cost is a hundredth of what it costs for a Prime's built bespoke product precisely because it is built on that core RV Engine that was developed for by the game. Hence VBS is a cash cow.

How this affects the CRY engine

The whole point of this is that the CRY engine are attempting to please the Primes instead of creating a game engine then modding it to suit the customer, who incidentally is not the Primes, though they will be willing to throw cash at the CRY engine in the hope that they can use it to compete with BIS, as I said that wont work as they are complicating it by putting in too many management layers into the development model. The Primes just try to act as gate keepers to the cash. There is nothing other than employing a military marketing team to stop the CRY engine cutting out the middle men. Though I dare say the Primes have slipped in cast iron contracts to stop that one ever happening again.

Maybe they are trying to re-enact the Prime's cost plus methodology with hotter tech, though I do not think it is hotter tech myself, not realising or more likely refusing to accept that the market has changed.

Or maybe and I am speculating here, in the hope that if the contract fails, of grabbing it as part of a failure to complete contract legal case, as has happened to at least one game developer in the past when doing military contracting. Stupid really as they would not understand the code if they got it and they could not pay the wages required for any real developers to develop it further, assuming they they managed to take control of it. And once again the market has changed so it is just another attempt at trying to resurrect the worst excesses of the cost plus model in the simulation market.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 18, 2011 by walker

[chris64 0]

:popcornsmilie:

Also this engine does look quite promising, I would probably even be able to live with the (probably) reduced game area

if it allowed for a higher fidelity of actual gameplay.

The hundreds of little problems in ArmA (the RV engine generally really) has pushed me over the years to

the point where I can no longer really bear to play for large amounts of time :( I really hope that BIS make some large changes whenever they release their next major iteration, but game releases in general have taught me to be cynical at all times :p

[Xero 10]

It looks amazing from that video, looking forward to seeing more on this.