New engine

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

CryEngine

Dont be scared to use someone elses work..

With this one it would reach Platina in days...

[.kju 3241]

The world isn't so simple as you believe, want or make it look like.

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Everything is possible...Its a matter of HOW MUCH

you want...

[sickboy 13]

So I guess we get Anderrsson FK v1.35 game out soon on the cry-engine, right?

Basicly; Cry-engine is nice, but where are the 100 vs 100 (or bigger) AI battles? How modable is the engine, how is the scripting language? Is the current scripting engine features possible in that engine?

Besides, I'm afraid Cry-engine should've come a lot earlier if BI would've needed to consider this engine seriously lol, ArmA2 comes out next year, wakey wakey

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Yes it does come out next year..

When did ArmA1 come out..A year ago dhuuu...

Rushworks never gets good...

[sickboy 13]

Yes it does come out next year..

When did ArmA1 come out..A year ago dhuuu...

Rushworks never gets good...

...

Anyway, I look at ArmA2 as a proper finishing of the ArmA1 project. And basicly, because they have the ArmA base now and enough feedback and bug reports to work on for at least a year, I have a better feeling about ArmA2. Especially considering that all I heard before ArmA came out is that it was an intermediate version, a "brush up" of OFP, while newer things would come down the road when "Game2" would popup.

At this time I've yet to become disappointed

[froggyluv 2130]

I guess as I get older 'gamey' games have much less appeal than they once had. I've bought 5 games in the last 2 years

-Fear;played once

-R6 Vegas; played a day

-Medievel Total War; 3 weeks

- Mount&Blade; play bout every other day

- Arma; week on week off heavily modded

If I have a week's worth of kickass gaming than i consider it money well spent.

Crysis looks to be at the top of the shooter food chain with mind bending graphics, very nice physics and a top notch map editor. Will probably make for some nice squad on squad gaming when/if military mods come out but it doesn't look built for full on military attack sim. Still a must have for me though. I'm looking at adding 3 games to my moldy library over next year or so

-Arma2

-Crysis

-Ofp2

I think i'll get at least 3 weeks godly gaming outta those.

[stakex 0]

The CryEngine would very likely not be suited well to ArmA/ArmA2. Sure the graphics and physics are great, and Im sure Crysis will be a top notch game when it comes out. But ArmA offers something Crysis won't.... and thats large scale battles on extreamly large maps. Its quite likely that CryEngine will not be able to do such things, and thus not what BIS is looking for.

This is a classic case of gameplay vs graphics... If the CryEngine was used, the gameplay ArmA/OFP are known for would suffer at the hands of better graphics. So it makes all the sense in the world for BIS to not go shopping for a new engine, but stick with their engine which is built for exactlly what they need.

[xnodunitx 0]

We'v already been through this before.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=11;t=60782;hl=crysis

If the url doesn't take you anywhere then perform a search in off topic for "Crysis nuke".

[Heatseeker 0]

Far Cry was going to be the best game ever.. did it replace OPF:R?

This thread shouldnt be locked because it shouldnt exist in the first place... .

[The_Captain 0]

Cryengine 2 might be okay, but I absolutely hated working with a licensed copy of CryEngine 1. It seemed nice on the outside, but inside it was disturbing and festering and did not come close to supporting large environments with intelligent AI, especially in any sort of multiplayer capacity. An abysmal engine to work with with extremely limited and bug ridden capabilities.

Of course, I'm biased by my experiences with CryEngine 1 but I wouldn't expect licensing CryEngine 2 to be any more pleasant. There are other things that your $350,000 can be spent on which don't include financing fancy italian cars at CryTek. Yuck. Give me the real virtuality/ofp/arma engine. At least the devs are open about the work they do on the engine and are committed to supporting it.

[suma 8]

The ArmA 2 engine will be a continuation of our Virtual Reality series - changing this now would mean a few years delay of the product release.

[sickboy 13]

The ArmA 2 engine will be a continuation of our Virtual Reality series - changing this now would mean a few years delay of the product release.

Besides, Virtual Reality engine is imho the one and only, simply best, engine around for the job. As noted earlier, CryEngine and what not might all look really great for the environments it plays in, but it probably doesn't hack it when it comes to numbers and distance. There might of course be a possibility to adapt, but at what cost? VR does a great job, bugs aside of course.

There is also of course a limit to computers, I don't think it's real to expect the screenshots you see from Crysis in a large scale game like ArmA(I/II), but it can come close to it of course

[xnodunitx 0]

In the end its not really a better choice, here are the reasons.

Aside from the time it would take to become familiar with this engine to the extent of your own would as Suma said, cause plenty more delays.

The Cryengine looks great yes but I wouldn't honestly want it used to Arma, for one character movement would go from the more (imo open and realistic) character movement to typical FPS run and gun (and no doubt bunny hop).

Also considering its DX10 vs DX9 comparisons, Arma does in DX9 what Crysis only does in DX10, such as 3D waves and falling tree's, rendering shrubbery at far distances (sure they may not be shaded like close tree's but they are there nonetheless), depth of field and who knows what else.

If you desire proof of this then look at these.

DX9 http://images.totalgamingnetwork.com/images/incrysis_mountains_dx9.jpg

DX 10 http://images.totalgamingnetwork.com/images....x10.jpg

Now I don't want to turn this into a "this engine is bad" flame contest, I had to post those images for proof because I do not like to give information without it.

The engine is great in its own way but it would not be for this kind of thing.

What crysis does have going for it is the fact that is dual core compatible and heavily tweaked, now this of course goes without saying when you have a huge staff of 150+

It is true that ArmaI and possibly II will not have the same graphical level but people really need to figure out this engine is not about graphics but gameplay. http://images.totalgamingnetwork.com/potd/moveoutcrysis.jpg consider this image, many of the Crysis community members are astonished at the amount of infantry and vehicles shown in this scene together, whereas to us its more like a typical tactical battle group we see here on Arma

not counting the 50+ extra infantry that swarm you, I wouldn't want to give that up for graphics.

Crysis is great but I can't honestly say I think it would be able to support nearly the amount of various units even OFP could, and to want to take a step down from gameplay to go to graphics and get rid of that ability would be a foolish mistake.

Now that doesn't mean I won't be playing or buying Crysis, depending on the single player I'm sure I will be buying it and I am sure it will become one of the most famous (hell it already is) next gen FPS.

[Allie 0]

Yea, i have to comment on that too,

OFP and ARMA are not about graphics, its about the game play and the massive freedom of editing, thats what it always has been about.

Later,

Allie

[MehMan 0]

I just dislike how they're propagating things that were there since OFP, if OFP itself didn't introduce them, stuff like day-night cycle and so on. It just gives me shivers when they keep mentioning it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread.

[xnodunitx 0]

I know, I was having a good laugh in an IRC channel with some friends the other day because they were so astonished at the day and night cycles plus the ability to take down tree's.

Pft, big woop, OFP's done that since DX8 and Arma does some things Crysis only does in DX10.

Although I have heard alot of DX10 users are having trouble, apparently by default XP gets better frame rates no matter what options you have set.

[yallu 0]

Well, the current engine seems a bit slow compared to what it has to process... There's definately a lot to improve in the graphics engine speedwise/performancewise... Or there will be no computer made that can handle ArmA2 .

Mayby there are bits and pieces bohemia could license from 3rd parties. Like trees from SpeedTree and volumetric clouds from one of the "cloud companies".

[Maddmatt 1]

...Like trees from SpeedTree...

SpeedTree isn't any better than ArmA's tree system from what I've seen. ArmA trees have all those features.

Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion used SpeedTree, yet ArmA's trees seem much better.

Also it seems like BIS doesn't like to license things like that. Maybe it works out better and cheaper when they make it themselves

[Heatseeker 0]

I know, I was having a good laugh in an IRC channel with some friends the other day because they were so astonished at the day and night cycles plus the ability to take down tree's.

Thats because the sunrises in Crysis look perfect and you cant compare the tree destruction model, in Crysis i can chop a palm tree in a bunch of logs, pick them up, throw them in the water and watch them float.

And a fallen tree retains its colision, might even kill you if it falls and hits you in the head.

But in terms of scale the Arma engine handles alot more detail on and off screen without it tuning invisible over very short distance, the Crysis engine is just not suitable for a Arma type game where we have a gigantic open world instead of levels...