Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CyclonicTuna

Is Arma III gonna shape up?

Recommended Posts

So I know that the BIS developers did a heck of job evolving the new engine Arma III is gonna run on (sorry I don't know the official name of the engine). But I am just curious as to how it is gonna shape up to the improved CryEngine 3 from Crytek.

I know I probably shouldn't be expecting the same thing from Bohemia purely based on the fact that the Arma III engine is being developed with a totally diffrent mindset and purpose. But as far as the techincal terms go I was curious when one would lay the finished Arma III engine and the CryEngine 3 next to each other how they would compare. What will be the strenghts and weaknesses of both Engines, how are they similair, and how do they differ from one another.

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive (which has also been named quite a few times on these forums if I'm not mistaken) is build upon the CryEngine I was curious as to how the would compare.

So yeah, there's a question. Maybe the dev's could give us some more insight in the improvements that they have made. Or maybe someone who know's more of this stuff then I do :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They seem to have lost the shitty blue filter, no doubt conveniently left out until final release. The very reason I am never buying another EA game as the art direction is shit.

So far the first two Crysis games have been pretty to look at and a complete yawnfest to play, number 3 probably wont live up either.

They can keep their clouds as compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point of this thread? You should worry about the game, not the engine, unless you're secretly the executive producer of some unnamed IP.

Because it looks like another Crytek fanboy come to post tech demo videos.

Cryengine is pretty. It has never given any indication of being able to do half of what RV can do, in terms of what is important (as opposed to eye candy) to large-scale military simulation. That's that. I'm not rising to RV's defence (it's clunky as hell), but I can't stand engine-tech wankery.

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive

Last I checked the project was in limbo, and still had to outbid BI with nothing much to show for it. If the military is smart, they will go the functional, mature technology. There's a reason we still use M4s and A10s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It´s not gonna compare. Crysis is and always was a rather bland, graphics heavy, linear shooter with GPU based physics so people can post youtube videos of blowing up 10.000 cars at once.

Arma 3 is an open world battlefield-sim, so the graphics are not gonna be as mindblowing. But with the new physX, I guess you can now blow up 10.000 cars at once too. On that note, I once sent an M1 into low orbit in OFP using three ammo boxes worth of satchel charges. I´ll have fun with that in A3 too when its out, and I actually buy it. Right now I´m not convinced. Unless the SP will be amazing and the game will be bug-free and tightly made on release, my immediate interests lie elsewhere.

But, I´ll hold back my opinions until I´ve tried the game at gamescom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pointless thread. You comparing a hummer with ferrari. In our case, RV3 Engine is a hummer, and CryTec3 is ferrari. Good looking, fast driving, but no more or less...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the point of this thread? You should worry about the game, not the engine, unless you're secretly the executive producer of some unnamed IP.

Because it looks like another Crytek fanboy come to post tech demo videos.

Cryengine is pretty. It has never given any indication of being able to do half of what RV can do, in terms of what is important (as opposed to eye candy) to large-scale military simulation. That's that. I'm not rising to RV's defence (it's clunky as hell), but I can't stand engine-tech wankery.

Last I checked the project was in limbo, and still had to outbid BI with nothing much to show for it. If the military is smart, they will go the functional, mature technology. There's a reason we still use M4s and A10s.

The reason for this thread is that I believe its good to always look around, because trying to learn from your own solutions never worked out for anyone. No company makes perfect software, and I am just curious how BI tackle's its problems, were things ar compromized and where things are expanded. I'm not a fanboy, I just came across this video and thought it would be a nice discussion starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason for this thread is that I believe its good to always look around, because trying to learn from your own solutions never worked out for anyone. No company makes perfect software, and I am just curious how BI tackle's its problems, were things ar compromized and where things are expanded. I'm not a fanboy, I just came across this video and thought it would be a nice discussion starter.

Well, from my uneducated perspective, the whole arma thing is one big compromise at every corner. The original engine dates back from before 2000. The first game was released in 2001. (btw the original tech demo can be found here: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Poseidon it has really cool music, tanks and choppers.) We are now in 2012, and the basic engine is STILL being used. The reason why we had to wait so long for features like ragdoll and advanced physics was that the core was made in a time before both were fully developed in the gaming industry. I find it pretty miraculous that they´re actually able to still advance and improve the engine, though by now I imagine it´s a pretty big, chaotic behemoth on the inside.

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Real_Virtuality RV on the biki.

If the cryengine were to be developed in as many applications as RV, and for as long a time as RV, it would become similarily complex and capable. It´s rare that a company sticks with one platform for such a long time, however. Most invest tons of money into new, cleaner, streamlined platforms dedicated to fitting the current technology (plus some futureproofing). Instead, BI have chosen an evolutionary approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that this is techdemo. The game will look worse on release. Plus they cover the lackluster graphics (fog everywhere, very tight corridors, 2D trees) with "composite lens flares" also known as BF3 dirty glasses.

There's nothing stopping any dev from throwing in a lot of polygonal detail but will you agree to play ArmA3 with 100m viewdistance like it will be with Crysis3?

Also considdering that the military trainingsoftware Realtime Immersive (which has also been named quite a few times on these forums if I'm not mistaken) is build upon the CryEngine I was curious as to how the would compare.

To be a military training software a software needs to start being used by military first.

Apparently CryEngine is so unsuited for things RV does that that famous Dismounted Soldier contract fell through and DSTS devs went with worse looking VBS2 1.x instead. And since then RTI was silent like a fish. Maybe in a few years it will resurface in some niche app (CryEngine2 was already used in some IED training software)

If the cryengine were to be developed in as many applications as RV, and for as long a time as RV, it would become similarily complex and capable.

First CryEngine techdemo dates back to 2001.

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always hated the look and feel of CryEngine games. Makes for great screenshots, but everything is far too busy and obviously rendered for gameplay. Just the bloomy feel of a console game where making things pretty is all that matters since the gameplay is crap and 110% scripted sequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I compare these two engines I like to think of a nice pair of dress pants versus a pair of sun worn and dirt stained jeans. Fashion versus Function, and if you are interested in seeing why, please click the spoiler.

One could argue that the editors are the strong points of each iteration, when you compare and contrast there is no doubt that Sandbox (cry engine) makes things easier in many ways, taking the role of most programs we use for Arma (textview, visitor, rvmats and to a degree O2PE)

Sandbox allows you to start a fresh map and set terrain height, or implament the terrain around it, afterwards you have a very intuitive and easy to understand interface to work with that allows a high degree of customization, from brush sizes to height/depth setting and more to form many kinds of terrains. Furthermore you can import the texture through the editor, change the color and paint what you wish to form the terrain texture, so you can have the same texture of leaves but with difference colors in two areas. You can go through folders and files of 3D objects, place them where you want in X, Y and Z, as well as up/downscale the object, as well as rotate it.

Just like the terrain example you can import textures for vehicles and change the diffuse, taking a grey diffuse and changing it to green, then setting a replica vehicle and give it a blue chassis. Texture materials are handled here as well, you can set the specular and gloss power and other fun materials on a texture basis. Entity placement is handled here as well, things such as lights, how far the light reaches, how bright it is, if it flickers or not, it's color, wether it casts shadows, and the ability to add textures to change the lights effect entirerly (for example take a single white light and make a texture with rainbow colors in a circle, place that texture on the light and it will show that instead)

Triggers are also handled in the editor via flowcharts, I can't say much on this because I don't understand this one all that much, all I know is that if you wanted anything to happen you had to do a LOT. Infantry can be placed and gear changed in editor as well..however, unlike Arma, YOU must define the AI. Where they can move, how far they can move, paths, check points and more, this is why you can run away from the AI in crysis 1 and they would not pursue you, much less flank you.

RV's editor can be argued to be better or worse in this case, simply set the AI down, set another down to attach it under rank, then set a waypoint with two or three simple clicks and they will follow. It definately wins with the out of the box AI, and the fact that the AI can generally think for themselves without you having to tell them where they can move as well as assign their cover. They also work as a team whereas crysis AI are generally every man for themself, in crysis they spoke but it wasn't to any coordinated effect. Furthermore RV wins with weapons hands down, taking into account bullet drop, horizontal and vertical recoil, and caliber for all weapons whereas crysis generally doesn't.

As an example, I was playing on the crysis beach with an assault rifle, figuring I'd put some lessons learned in Arma to use, swapped my iron sights for a scope to take out enemies from afar. When I fired I noticed they would jerk, but they just stood there for the most part, after several shots and magazines later it became apparent that even though I was hitting them, my bullets weren't done any damage due to range, I tried this with the other rifle and sure enough no damage.

Wounding is another great pro for RV, whereas in crysis regardless of how often you are shot and when, your body never suffers damage effects such as crawling (or stunted speed) or loss of accuracy.

Vehicles. Even though they can't be customized in the editor as Sandbox can, they offer more with their damage system, the fact that you can disable a vehicle by shooting tires or tracks (now if only the AI didn't bail out), as well as being able to shoot through lighter armored vehicles pending caliber. Crysis also goes for the more hollywood damage where if you shoot the gas tank once that little spark will make it go boom.

Command system is no competition given that no crysis game to date has this.

Modabbility. Both games have strengths in this, if we move to the more advanced things, stuff can be done in crysis that we do in configs, and amazing things come out of each, but for crysis it is generally limited to infantry. I've come to respect O2 greatly from a modding standard, it may not be as easy to model in as 3Dsmax or Maya but it does offer us the ability to customize our addons to an insane degree with a variety of options. Furthermore Arma's wiki offers tons and tons of commands to give us the ability to do things I thought impossible for many things. Infantry doesn't have to be our main focus, we can get as in depth with anything that we desire.

Until we see physX 3 I would have to say that Crysis leads in this, a great deal of modding and gameplay is based around it, in ways that would add so much for Arma or take place of already set scripting and give it some levity in processing.

IF one were to compare the two games to people (I'll be using women in my case, no offense ladies, the examples do not apply to everyone, they reflect the engine.) One is a fresh adult, foxy and always wants to look her best, prefers vanity over all else (visuals over function with less focus on physics) and is a bit exciteable (quick fire fights). She's doesn't like to stray from her comfort zone (AI and corridor set maps).

The latter is more mature. She may not be as eye pleasing to some (visuals), she is straight forward and is willing to try more things (bullet drop, recoil, fatigue, wider array of weapons, infantry placement, more in depth vehicles, vast map, commanding) and she has more..endurance..longer firefights....well I couldn't think of any way to not make that sound like an inuendo...oh well while I'm at it I may as well say that she likes to be the dominating one on occasion (sharp AI and damage system)

Edited by NodUnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cryengine has a wonderful 3d editor is really easy and quite intuitive plus in this version uses Scaleform for the GUI and LUA for the script language.

Scaleform in my opinion is better than Java in RV, i hope that the developers will think about on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only played first Crysis, but looking at screenshots from 2 and 3, I liked it's graphics the best (in fact, judging by the comments, it seems the later titles took away just about everything that was good in the first). The gameplay was also nice, if Hollywood-ish, especially with regards to physics. For example, try firing an underbarrel GL at an oncoming car in both ArmA and Crysis. In ArmAII, it'll kill the crew, blow the tyres and might set the car on fire. In Crysis, it'd make the car flip over while turning into a fireball. Badass? Yes. Realistic? Hardly.

Regarding AI, I liked Crysis one a bit better than one in ArmA, thanks to somewhat better patchfinding, fairly good usage of tactics and diverse, smooth animations. I've heard complaints about AI in Crysis 2, which I guess come from devs putting good AI from an open, mostly jungle environment into the aforementioned tight corridors. It was developed for the former in first place, so it can't really handle tight spaces. Damage system is indeed much better in ArmA, I don't think there's another game with it being so carefully modeled.

Another thing Crysis can't do are 20x20km (and larger) landscapes. This is arguably the most unique feature of RV. You should've seen my friend, who mostly plays BF3, when I told her that 5x5km maps are considered small in ArmA community, and that there's plenty of 20x20km maps :). And I didn't even mention ArmAIII. The first Crysis did a good job at hiding the dinkyness of it's maps by limiting itself to infantry for the most part and setting the action in a rather vision-limiting jungle, but ArmA simply can't do that, because as a combined ops simulation, it includes a lot of aircraft and vehicles, as well as realistic weapon ranges. Also, because of the fact ArmA is more of a combined ops sim, comparing it and Crysis is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges.

In short: It could be possible to make a superior jungle oriented infantry-only sim using Cryengine, but that's about it. RV offers larger terrain size and more diversity, as well as a better damage model. For a combined ops sim, it's much more fitting. There are two things Crysis had I'd like to see in ArmA III: Graphics and AI. Looking at the vids, the graphics in AIII will be at least as good as the first Crysis, which is good enough for me. As for the latter, it seems that AI improvement is planned for AIII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always hated the look and feel of CryEngine games. Makes for great screenshots, but everything is far too busy and obviously rendered for gameplay. Just the bloomy feel of a console game where making things pretty is all that matters...

I kinda agree on that, I always felt like the Arma engine had a much more clean and krisp feel to it. That can sometimes take away from the experience like in CQC or when there is supposed to be a lot of dust. But for the most part it adds to a very rich detailled big landscape. I think its a shame that many developers these days think that an overcorrected and gritty look is considderd "realistic", just because its been gloryfied by so many hollywood movies. The thing is that a lot of things that work in movies don't work so well in videogames, and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crysis 1 is legendary, but CryTek has went to shit with Crysis 2 derp edition, thus making the point of the original poster redundant.

IgizpmXDiXI

DX11 tessellation in a corridor shooter with semi-open spaces of 150x100m. which is Crysis 2/3, must be so incredible. :rolleyes: Potential wasted.

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just because its been gloryfied by so many hollywood movies. The thing is that a lot of things that work in movies don't work so well in videogames, and vice versa.

Fuuuucking fiiilterssssss

That said I agree that crysis 1 was the best looking, the rich colors made it look real, it also didn't have an abundance of bloom amazingly enough, it was scenery I could happily stare at for a long time while crysis 2 and I'm pretty sure 3 are mostly....ehhh. IT was also great since they weren't entirerly corridor focused or fully linear, the alien ship was fun to get lost in and while yeah it had limits..nothing nearyl as limiting as crysis 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ARMA 3 looks better than CE3

Given the scale, it does. What's more, ArmA II is still the most photo-realistic game on PC, especially in the woodland part of Chernarus. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the scale, it does. What's more, ArmA II is still the most photo-realistic game on PC, especially in the woodland part of Chernarus. ;)

I'd say Crysis 1 beats it by few inches, though the games are difficult to compare because terrain type is so different. Post Processing was a bit overdone in ArmA II, especially motion blur and bloom. Disabling PP isn't much of a solution, as it gets rid of a few nice effects. ArmA III doesn't seem to have this problem though, at least judging by the vids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say Crysis 1 beats it by few inches

It is too plastiki-looking, although those banana trees do look great.

though the games are difficult to compare because terrain type is so different.

Precisely. I haven't seen a good temperate zone terrain on CryEngine, so European foliage in ArmA II is closer to heart. :)

Edit:

FKG9B-XDub4

Notice the relatively neutral colour saturation throughout the scenes, and even though the sea may look very vibrant - that how the Med is in real life! Overall filter/saturation used gives you the impression that you are in the Mediterranean area, and not in Central Europe (Chernarus), or some sci-fi banana republic (Crysis).

Edited by Iroquois Pliskin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can never judge a game by it's engine, There are good games for Engines (Unreal for Unreal Engine, Mechwarrior for Cryengine) and bad games (GoW for Unreal Engine, Crysis 2 for Cryengine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with GPU based physics so people can post youtube videos of blowing up 10.000 cars at once.

Cryengine never did support GPU physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×