Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dirtylarrygb

Crysis Nukes

Recommended Posts

Forget the crytek-engine.

There is nothing compared to the dark side of the force (LucasArts) biggrin_o.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4EF9IkhAOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDm80gi1zJw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBDvawa2HLA

This thingy is called Euphoria or DMM -Engine.

Unfortunately it's PS3, XBOX360 etc only  sad_o.gif

I dont see that engine being usefull to either Crysis or Game2, it may have nice physics but its probably another small space blabla engine wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its funny how everyone is defending AA so much here, kinda denying that AA simply uses an engine that is outdated, no matter how much it has been improved since ofp. Its outdated, buggy, has no good physics at all (as a matter of fact one of the worst physics I've seen in any game up to date), an extremely buggy AI engine etc etc. I know its kinda hard for people to accept it in a forum thats made for AA of course, but if you'd just think realistically and objectivally you'll see that Cryengine 2 simply is a far more advanced, far more modern engine which could be used for another ofp, no matter denying that. And I'm sure it would perform better in every aspect than the AA engine would ever do. Simply because its more modern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graphics..okay I'm looking at those images and believe it or not Armed Assault can in a way look like that, you just have to adjust the gamma so that things appear darker and richer, believe it or not, it will have the same effect and can make a vast difference.

Holy crap, you're so right.

Normal

Adjusted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its funny how everyone is defending AA so much here, kinda denying that AA simply uses an engine that is outdated, no matter how much it has been improved since ofp. Its outdated, buggy, has no good physics at all (as a matter of fact one of the worst physics I've seen in any game up to date), an extremely buggy AI engine etc etc. I know its kinda hard for people to accept it in a forum thats made for AA of course, but if you'd just think realistically and objectivally you'll see that Cryengine 2 simply is a far more advanced, far more modern engine which could be used for another ofp, no matter denying that. And I'm sure it would perform better in every aspect than the AA engine would ever do. Simply because its more modern.

since we who are "defending" ArmA being some of the most beautiful game that DX9 could offer are running it with HD spec with fairly well FPS(30 something with VD of 5000 is somewhat playable)

you cant run it HD, sorry about that, but your words dont justify what the game engine can do, yes you may compare it to games like R6 vages or BF or many other titles on the market, they run with much higher FPS for sure and we wont joke about that fact in the face, but its also like compare your car fuel tank to the one on cargo ship which ppls always overlook

now back to cryengine2, i am not saying any bad thing about it, really it looks good feels good and i wish it will be as good and as it seems to be but thats something we wont be able to get our hands on till the fall of this year, so sorry if my "fanboyish" of ArmA didnt float your boat, but with the "outdated" engine using the "outdate" DX9 code with everything that other developers didnt even think about b4 or basicly couldnt handle it, i still think ArmA engine is as good as BI could offer, and sure as hell there are no others aside Bi and crytek could do the same with

edit: oh i almost forgot about stalker, yes it is a very good game and god it feels so well but it also take the same time we spend on messing around our good old flashpoint to death to develop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its funny how everyone is defending AA so much here, kinda denying that AA simply uses an engine that is outdated, no matter how much it has been improved since ofp. Its outdated, buggy, has no good physics at all (as a matter of fact one of the worst physics I've seen in any game up to date), an extremely buggy AI engine etc etc. I know its kinda hard for people to accept it in a forum thats made for AA of course, but if you'd just think realistically and objectivally you'll see that Cryengine 2 simply is a far more advanced, far more modern engine which could be used for another ofp, no matter denying that. And I'm sure it would perform better in every aspect than the AA engine would ever do. Simply because its more modern.

While i agree that it looks better and has alot better physics, i wonder how it will handle large scale fights (100vs100 AI's). Oblivion also looked great when it was released but it had 10 AI's fighting at the same time which kinda sucked IMO.  confused_o.gif

This would make the engine very unsuitable for ArmA or Game2. (Oh, and the fact that its not released yet...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Arma is a semi sandbox.  A world which you then populate for your needs.  The world is always there is just has nothing in it,  people, cars etc etc.

GTA does the same thing except complex scripts populate the world as you move around.  You could probably with time and effort do the same thing in ARMA.  But ARMA is more a MP game complete a single mission right now.

Yes it would be nice if you had a huge populated world.  So you log in team up with other people and do missions and as you complete things the world changes.  But the effort here is huge.

You only have to look at the RTS mod to see how vcool the arma engine can be.  I want to play ARMA RTS more than c and C 3.

The only directly comparable engine is probably the Join operations engines.  Joint Op's is 2 years older and ARMA is alot better.  Although Joint Op's was stunning for it's time.

I'm not saying the world in ArmA dissapears or is streamed or anything like that though.

I'm just pointing the major differences between ArmA and other games scale and focus wise and why one is not superior or inferior to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I start this flamewar between the ArmA believers and the graphic extremists? Oh snap!!!! (Yes, I used slang) its like the US and the Middle East over here!!!

Crysis was built from the ground up (As Well MP, the lead designer says that FarCry MP was very restricting, so they threw that code away). They have MP tested demos out there. It looks great yes. But it will be impossible to see how it would preform in which all players could be over the 400,000sq km island at once. (Reminder: They do have F-18's and carriers on MP...so....)

I do believe that BIS could perhaps catch up physically (Excuse the pun) if they had perhaps... idk... 4-5x the team-size. biggrin_o.gif Sure they would make a smaller cut in the games final profits but they wouldn't have to be working long shifts to finish necessary patches months after the product is released + could start new game without sacrificing time spent on patches etc for the original game. Could just double the amount of games they make instead of making double profits on a game that takes double the time to make (patches included).

CryEngine would just make life a little easier for the team pending on whether or not the Engine could hold that many players over that distance. Many games have modified other engines, so really anything is possible. All I want is the best for BIS biggrin_o.gif.. Because OFP and ArmA are the only games I really play.. and I have over 40 of the newest PC Games and... yet I still get bored from those games after 2 weeks. ArmA/OFP are the only exceptions.

If the CryEngine was $49.95 (Extreme Hypothetical) and only offered more to the table to BIS than their engine... What would you do then with your less than 50 team? Build a whole new engine to save 50 bucks? Is that the real issue here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I start this flamewar between the ArmA believers and the graphic extremists? Oh snap!!!! (Yes, I used slang) its like the US and the Middle East over here!!!

Crysis was built from the ground up (As Well MP, the lead designer says that FarCry MP was very restricting, so they threw that code away). They have MP tested demos out there. It looks great yes. But it will be impossible to see how it would preform in which all players could be over the 400,000sq km island at once. (Reminder: They do have F-18's and carriers on MP...so....)

I do believe that BIS could perhaps catch up physically (Excuse the pun) if they had perhaps... idk... 4-5x the team-size. biggrin_o.gif Sure they would make a smaller cut in the games final profits but they wouldn't have to be working long shifts to finish necessary patches months after the product is released + could start new game without sacrificing time spent on patches etc for the original game. Could just double the amount of games they make instead of making double profits on a game that takes double the time to make (patches included).

CryEngine would just make life a little easier for the team pending on whether or not the Engine could hold that many players over that distance. Many games have modified other engines, so really anything is possible. All I want is the best for BIS biggrin_o.gif.. Because OFP and ArmA are the only games I really play.. and I have over 40 of the newest PC Games and... yet I still get bored from those games after 2 weeks. ArmA/OFP are the only exceptions.

If the CryEngine was $49.95 (Extreme Hypothetical) and only offered more to the table to BIS than their engine... What would you do then with your less than 50 team? Build a whole new engine to save 50 bucks? Is that the real issue here?

how the game 2 engine (which should be in DX10) works is anybody guess, so too early to tell if they could surpass cry2, what i am thinking of is that while crytek are more or less trying to sell their engine like unreal and HL2 engine did, BI is simply looking for money from other place, where other engine can not fit the job

but these are just words TBH...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another futile argument that will only be settled by time.  

Sure, I played OFP longer than any other game I have owned.  But I had to get a refund for my download version of ArmA because it simply didn't work.

If Crysis is released with good code then it still has to pass the time/playablility/mod-ability test.  But bottom line is the question of if it's well produced.

The fact that they are producing an "engine" to sell not just a game worries me as that historically has meant a lesser game.

Success IS driven by sales, because without money there is no support, no capital to pay the bills, and no incentive to produce similar titles.

My biggest suprise it that capital rich dev's spent money on crap and not an OFP knock-off.  Imagine EA releasing BF for one segment of the market and something OFP-ish for the segment not drawn to it.

It seems good sense to me to corner the market by hitting all the segments of the PC Gaming market rather than saturating one segment.

Then again I'm just one abbey-normal mind...what do I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire discussion is missing some rather key details.

We've seen already how the community has thrown fits over Arma's system requirements, and the heavy load it places on the PC. It doesn't matter how uber your engine may be, when you have thousands of objects each with thousands of polygons and multiple layers of hi-resolution textures, combined with AI, physics, and other backend systems, you must pay a scaling performance cost as the user.

For the developer, each additional part or layer you have to manage results in a significant amount of costs and schedule requirements. There is also the risk of continual rework required to respond to engine updates. The end user often only sees compressed (ie paa) data, and doesn't see the raws (ie tga) that are more reflective of actual system load 'costs'.

One example I like to come back to terrain environments. It's a nerd fetish of mine, and what got me started modding in OFP. Let's look at forests for starters. If you get out of the corridor model, and get into outdoor or FS scales, where do you draw your boundings limits? Take a look at the really high end systems like the E&S (Now RockwellCollins) image generators on their vegetation. Folks like to whine and complain about their big boys 'low fidelity', but if you crunch the numbers the problem actually goes the other way.

A 32bit number has an absolute max value of 4,294,967,296. That works out to 512 megabytes using the proper 1024 divisor. Now let's throw in some addressing requirements as well. Assuming that we want to model real world locations, each and every object needs to be placed absolutely in real-world coordinates. The circumference of the earth at the equator is approximately 40,075.02 km. That's also 40,075,020 meters, or 4,007,502,000 centimeters. Ok, so if we want real-world positioning we can probably stick with centimeters, and not worry about going to millimeters. That's a 32 bit value for X pos. Now we need Y pos. That's another 32 bits, or 40,007.86 km circumference. And now Y pos, but our requirements don't go out into space yet.

So you're looking at least at a 64bit frame to transmit a real-world pos, for a single object, whether it be a tree or a bullet in flight. Assuming we're merely stacking 32bit addresses and not going to 64bit, that's a mere 1 gigabyte value, times a million trees. (not going to bother with the CS exercises in compression and floats here, that's a whole 'nother topic. Just trying to illustrate the scale.)

Ok, now let's suppose on a 50km by 50km map you cover the whole thing in moderate density temperate climate vegetation. There's going to be a rock, tree, or bush in probably every square meter. I'm not counting grass at this time. So you're looking at 2,500,000,000 objects. No roads, no buildings, and now we've got over half of a 32bit index tied up in vegetation. You can't shortcut that one, because if you push over a tree, that tree has to stay pushed over in single player or multi, or else the immersion's going to suck.

The big-boy FS's get around this by breaking the databases up into georeferenced sections, then localizing the values where possible. The sections sit anywhere between dozens of gigabytes to terabytes of data. Do you have a network server that can store and stream 5TB of data to your GPU on demand? I don't.

Ok, now that I've boggled your brain throwing numbers around, who's going to place all those trees? Sure, you can import GIS data, but that only works for starters. No matter how good it is, someone will have to go over it manually, acre by acre, and check every road, building, fence, and make sure they're all pointing the right direction and so on. How much time do you thing it would take to do that? Any visitor eggheads enjoy placing buildings one at a time here?

Now go look at Crytek's CE2 features PDF, and look at the mission designers info. Just try counting all those triggers. Each one has to be placed and properties configured. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying the scale is impractical, thus what you will see is the continued preponderance of corridor shooters, because the costs associated with creating hi-def free range systems is mind-boggling compared to corridors.

Summary :

The point I'm trying to make here, is that even with all the resources in the world, to actually implement what crysis is assumed to be offering by the community is rather impractical, and involves lots of bad maths by the gamers. You can have high detail, or you can have high performance, but not both.

And if you want hi-def, goodbye to ever being able to practically mod any more on a wide scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This entire discussion is missing some rather key details.

We've seen already how the community has thrown fits over Arma's system requirements, and the heavy load it places on the PC. It doesn't matter how uber your engine may be, when you have thousands of objects each with thousands of polygons and multiple layers of hi-resolution textures, combined with AI, physics, and other backend systems, you must pay a scaling performance cost as the user.

For the developer, each additional part or layer you have to manage results in a significant amount of costs and schedule requirements. There is also the risk of continual rework required to respond to engine updates. The end user often only sees compressed (ie paa) data, and doesn't see the raws (ie tga) that are more reflective of actual system load 'costs'.

One example I like to come back to terrain environments. It's a nerd fetish of mine, and what got me started modding in OFP. Let's look at forests for starters. If you get out of the corridor model, and get into outdoor or FS scales, where do you draw your boundings limits? Take a look at the really high end systems like the E&S (Now RockwellCollins) image generators on their vegetation. Folks like to whine and complain about their big boys 'low fidelity', but if you crunch the numbers the problem actually goes the other way.

A 32bit number has an absolute max value of 4,294,967,296. That works out to 512 megabytes using the proper 1024 divisor. Now let's throw in some addressing requirements as well. Assuming that we want to model real world locations, each and every object needs to be placed absolutely in real-world coordinates. The circumference of the earth at the equator is approximately 40,075.02 km. That's also 40,075,020 meters, or 4,007,502,000 centimeters. Ok, so if we want real-world positioning we can probably stick with centimeters, and not worry about going to millimeters. That's a 32 bit value for X pos. Now we need Y pos. That's another 32 bits, or 40,007.86 km circumference. And now Y pos, but our requirements don't go out into space yet.

So you're looking at least at a 64bit frame to transmit a real-world pos, for a single object, whether it be a tree or a bullet in flight. Assuming we're merely stacking 32bit addresses and not going to 64bit, that's a mere 1 gigabyte value, times a million trees. (not going to bother with the CS exercises in compression and floats here, that's a whole 'nother topic. Just trying to illustrate the scale.)

Ok, now let's suppose on a 50km by 50km map you cover the whole thing in moderate density temperate climate vegetation. There's going to be a rock, tree, or bush in probably every square meter. I'm not counting grass at this time. So you're looking at 2,500,000,000 objects. No roads, no buildings, and now we've got over half of a 32bit index tied up in vegetation. You can't shortcut that one, because if you push over a tree, that tree has to stay pushed over in single player or multi, or else the immersion's going to suck.

The big-boy FS's get around this by breaking the databases up into georeferenced sections, then localizing the values where possible. The sections sit anywhere between dozens of gigabytes to terabytes of data. Do you have a network server that can store and stream 5TB of data to your GPU on demand? I don't.

Ok, now that I've boggled your brain throwing numbers around, who's going to place all those trees? Sure, you can import GIS data, but that only works for starters. No matter how good it is, someone will have to go over it manually, acre by acre, and check every road, building, fence, and make sure they're all pointing the right direction and so on. How much time do you thing it would take to do that? Any visitor eggheads enjoy placing buildings one at a time here?

Now go look at Crytek's CE2 features PDF, and look at the mission designers info. Just try counting all those triggers. Each one has to be placed and properties configured. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying the scale is impractical, thus what you will see is the continued preponderance of corridor shooters, because the costs associated with creating hi-def free range systems is mind-boggling compared to corridors.

Summary :

The point I'm trying to make here, is that even with all the resources in the world, to actually implement what crysis is assumed to be offering by the community is rather impractical, and involves lots of bad maths by the gamers. You can have high detail, or you can have high performance, but not both.

And if you want hi-def, goodbye to ever being able to practically mod any more on a wide scale.

i have to say you nailed the muppets(like me) on spot, good post i have to say! rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon further analysis my conversion of the binary values to decimal values is partially misleading to those who aren't shoveling bits all day.

A clarification is in order :

A 32-bit value only takes up 4 bytes of space. A 64bit value thus takes up 8 bytes of space.

However, as I've shown in the decimal conversion, a 32-bit index is hardly sufficient for large-scale sectored streaming engines. So you're looking at 64 bits (8 bytes) for XY pos. Multiply that by 2^32 objects, and there's 4 gigabytes just for ~4 and a quarter billion objects' 2d pos values.

For another example, let's look at the OFP terrain texturing system. The next-gen method is somewhat different, and the layers skew the numbers differently. A default cell is 50m sq, so 20cm aerial imaging ( >5x better than digitalGlobe or SPOT sourced commercial data) works out to 256x256 pixel textures. PAA's for those sit around 43kb. The OFP maps were limited to 512 unique textures, but if they were unlimited, at 256x256 cells that's 2.7 gigabytes of textures. So let's step it back to 1m resolution, that's still 350mb, but well within normal people's ability to manage. For a 12km map.

Push it up to a 50km map, 4x the size of Sahrani, you're up to 5.5 gigabytes. Your average home PC is going to have some difficulties moving that amount of data at any sort of speed. Also, your 32bit computer can only handle a 4 gigabyte file.

So you start to get a glimpse of the headaches that come up when you start demanding and drooling over eyecandy without fairly evaluating the costs.

I'll leave you with one last thought. In the winter time, I never turn the heat on. Yet my apartment is as warm as my neighbors, for the same electric bill. They run their baseboard heaters non-stop in a drafty apartment. What's the wide ranging big picture there? And who's lost parts due to summer heat? I've lost a CRT and a video card due to overheating, in a high-latitude temperate environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]So let's step it back to 1m resolution, that's still 350mb, but well within normal people's ability to manage. For a 12km map.

Push it up to a 50km map, 4x the size of Sahrani, you're up to 5.5 gigabytes.

You said 4x the size? Wouldn't that be 4x350mb or 1400mb?

I assume you mean 4x the length and 4x the width, thus it would be 16x the size (keeping in scale). ...and then yes, it would be 5.5GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i understand what SR is on about. He problably would have liked to make a whole city in Arma's high graphical standard but had to compromise somehow... total amount of data and performance restrictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think i understand what SR is on about. He problably would have liked to make a whole city in Arma's high graphical standard but had to compromise somehow... total amount of data and performance restrictions?

YEP that whats he talking about, but what he is saying is something more in deep, i think, cant clearly say what it is about through confused_o.gif

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  

×